Oral
Answers to
Questions

COP26

The President of COP26 was asked—

Fossil Fuel Industry

John McNally: What recent assessment he has made of the role of the fossil fuel industry in meeting the UK’s COP26 climate commitments.

Chris Stephens: What recent assessment he has made of the role of the fossil fuel industry in meeting the UK’s COP26 climate commitments.

Alok Sharma: The Government are committed to a managed transition from fossil fuels to green energy as we work to deliver on our 2050 net zero commitment.

John McNally: The UN Secretary-General has called investment in new fossil fuel production and power plants “moral and economic madness”. The European Parliament has objected to plans to include gas in the definition of sustainable energy. Surely the COP26 President must agree that the Westminster Government are making a mockery of their presidency at COP. Not only have they increased support for fossil fuels, but their renewables policy is disguising billions in subsidies for biomass. How does he square the Government’s plans with the UK’s COP26 commitment and with the views of his possible future boss?

Alok Sharma: I am very happy with my current boss, the Prime Minister. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the British energy security strategy, which was published a few weeks ago, it clearly sets out our commitment to a clean energy future. He knows that our stated aim is to decarbonise the electricity sector by 2035, and we stand by that.

Chris Stephens: The fossil fuel lobby at COP26, covering more than 100 fossil fuel companies, fielded a larger delegation than the combined delegations of the eight countries worst affected by climate change, and was the single largest delegation with more than 500 delegates. Does the COP26 President not agree that although investment in renewables by fossil fuel companies is a key part of tackling climate change, it would not be appropriate for that situation to be repeated at COP27? The fossil fuel industry should not be given the loudest voice in climate discussions.

Alok Sharma: The presidency in any one year is not responsible for who attends a particular COP; we are responsible for the presidency platform. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that at COP26, all participating corporates were required to have signed up to the UN’s Race to Zero campaign and were committing to reach net zero by 2050 on science-based targets. There were no fossil fuel companies participating on UK presidency platforms in Glasgow.

Gary Streeter: I encourage my right hon. Friend to continue to get the balance right between marching towards a green future and using whatever fuels we need to use in the meantime to keep the lights on in our hospitals, schools, homes and offices. He has done a great job so far. Will he continue to get that balance right?

Alok Sharma: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We have always talked about a managed transition to a clean energy future. It is not about flicking a switch off overnight; I think everybody understands that. As a Government, of course, we have to make sure that we keep the lights on and keep the factories and businesses running.

Jacob Young: Does the COP26 President recognise that fossil fuels remain critical in the transition to net zero 2050 and in the production of blue hydrogen, plastics and power through carbon capture, utilisation and storage projects such as Net Zero Teesside?

Alok Sharma: My hon. Friend makes the same point that this is about a managed transition. We want to ensure that we decarbonise the electricity system by 2035. Hon. Members will know that the energy security strategy is all about transitioning to a clean energy future with a big push on renewables, nuclear and hydrogen.

Lindsay Hoyle: We now come to the shadow COP26 President.

Ed Miliband: It has been reported that the COP26 President is in the running to become the executive secretary of climate at the UN. I wish him well, because he would do an excellent job in that post. Part of the reason he won respect at COP26 was for his commitment to phase out fossil fuel subsidies, yet here at home the Chancellor has created a massive loophole in the windfall tax to give away at least £4 billion of public money in new incentives for new oil and gas projects. Can the COP26 President tell us whether he was consulted on that plan? How much does he estimate that it will drive up emissions? Is it not totally at odds with the agreement on fossil fuels that he worked so hard to secure in Glasgow?

Alok Sharma: The energy profits levy to which the right hon. Gentleman refers is a targeted short-term measure with an effective end date of December 2025. Any company looking to make future energy investments will have to factor in the risks of potentially ending up with stranded assets.

Ed Miliband: Maybe the COP26 President has one eye on the UN, because that did not sound like a wholehearted endorsement of the Chancellor’s policy, and he is right to think that the Chancellor’s policy does  not make any sense. The money will either go to oil and gas projects that would have happened anyway, or incentivise new projects that will make no difference to consumer bills, take years to come to fruition and drive a coach and horses through our climate commitments. What is more, this policy excludes investments in renewables, which are the quickest, cheapest and cleanest form of power. Does that not reveal the truth that on climate, he says one thing on the world stage and the rest of the Government do another here at home? Is it not totally understandable that he wants to jump off the sinking ship?

Alok Sharma: The right hon. Gentleman will not get rid of me that easily. He needs to look at what the Government have done over the past few years: we have built the second biggest offshore wind sector in the world, which is precisely the reason that we are not dependent on Russian hydrocarbons, as some countries are. We have had a big push on renewables. He talks about the energy profits levy, but he should please have a look—he will have done this anyway, but a detailed look—at the energy security strategy, which sets out a very clear direction to a clean energy future for the UK.

Glasgow Climate Pact: Business

James Sunderland: What assessment he has made of the role of businesses in implementing the Glasgow climate pact.

Alok Sharma: COP26 was one of the first such summits where the corporate sector’s presence and commitments were significant. Over 7,000 international businesses have now signed up to the UN Race to Zero campaign, which commits them to reaching net zero by 2050 at the latest. The private sector will of course be critical to helping deliver on the commitments in the Glasgow climate pact.

James Sunderland: My constituency of Bracknell is blessed with several businesses of 10 employers or fewer. How might they be helped and persuaded towards climate neutrality when key decisions may not be in their immediate economic interest?

Alok Sharma: In fact, there are many businesses, both large and small, that are committing to cut emissions, because they have understood that it is good for their bottom line and actually gives them a competitive advantage with clients and customers. I refer my hon. Friend to the UK business climate hub, which is championed by the Government and climate groups. Over 3,000 UK small and medium-sized enterprises have already signed up. I am sure that, if small businesses in Bracknell look at the website, they will understand the positive impact of making a climate commitment.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Deidre Brock: The COP26 President will be aware of concerns raised about aspects of biomass, so how does he intend to ensure that carbon emissions from this sector and businesses such as wood-burning power stations are reflected in the reformed UK emissions trading system? How does he think the COP commitment to protect the world’s  forests aligns with existing UK Government policies for burning imported wood and the considerable UK Government subsidies given to this industry?

Alok Sharma: There are quite a lot of questions there in one. We have a very clear commitment, not only in our legal framework but in the net zero strategy, which sets out how we will decarbonise through different sectors of the economy. The hon. Member mentioned forests, and she will know that at COP26 over 140 countries representing more than 90% of forests made a commitment to reverse deforestation by 2030. I have just returned from Stockholm, where I and other UK Ministers held a meeting to discuss how we can push forward those commitments. They are not just written down; we are actually seeing progress.

Fossil Fuel Interest Groups

Jon Trickett: If he will make an assessment of the effect of fossil fuel interest groups on the outcomes of COP26.

Alok Sharma: I answered this question earlier, but I reiterate that, to participate on UK presidency platforms at COP26, all corporates were required to sign up to net zero commitments. Let me reconfirm that there were no fossil fuel companies participating on UK presidency platforms.

Jon Trickett: Look, the truth is that the whole process of transition is either stalled or in reverse. We know that there are powerful interest groups in Downing Street saying that climate change is of secondary importance. What is striking is that, when we look at ministerial diaries, we see that Ministers have met representatives of fossil fuel companies nine times more frequently than companies representing renewables. Is it not clear that this Government are in the pockets of the fossil fuel industries and have in effect been captured by those corporations, which explains the asymmetric way in which the Government are operating in relation to the transition?

Alok Sharma: This Government have not been captured by any interest. Once again, I point out to the hon. Member that, if he looks at the energy security strategy for the direction of travel, he will see that we are looking to quintuple the amount of both offshore wind and solar, and by 2050 we want a quarter of our electricity needs to come from nuclear. As far as I am concerned, if he looks at the detail of that, he will understand that we are focused on a clean energy future, and that is what we are delivering.

Adaptation

Sally-Ann Hart: What progress he plans to make on adaptation in his COP26 presidency year.

Rebecca Pow: Good progress is being made on adaptation, as was clear at COP26, and it is critical that we work on that. We will continue to do that through the global goal on adaptation, which has just had its first workshop, and by focusing on doubling adaptation finance to £40 billion. An example of what  we in the UK are doing to adapt to rising tides around the coast is our coastal accelerator programme, which we have just launched.

Sally-Ann Hart: The reality is that every country, including the UK, will need to adapt to the impacts of climate change, in which nature-based solutions can play a significant role. What steps is my hon. Friend taking to consider the opportunities and policy support needed to implement nature-based solutions across the UK, in ways that deliver for nature, climate and people?

Rebecca Pow: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important issue. Nature-based solutions are critical, and about one third of the mitigation that we need to keep up with 2° of warming can be delivered through natural solutions. That is why the Government are focusing so many of their policies on that issue, whether through flood funding, the new environmental land management scheme, our Nature for Climate fund—that is £740 million and focuses specifically on trees—or peatland restoration. All those things will restore habitats, increase biodiversity and, critically, reduce carbon emissions and sequester carbon.

Caroline Lucas: We rightly talk about the adaptation finance gap, but as the Minister will know, according to Oxfam the economic costs of loss and damage could be up to £580 billion a year by 2030, yet rich countries are continuing to drag their feet. Will the Government work to ensure that Egypt succeeds where Glasgow failed, so that the £100 billion in climate finance is not just met but exceeded, and so that a new loss and damage finance facility is established at COP27?

Rebecca Pow: A major focus of COP26 was attracting climate finance, and £126 billion was attracted for the forest and agriculture sector to work on reducing degradation. We are of course focusing on the just energy transition, which is also important, and that remains a key focus, in particular doubling finance for adaptation to £40 billion by 2025.

Rehman Chishti: I very much welcome the Minister’s answer about working with all sectors on delivering on COP26. Before the United Kingdom hosted COP26, the Secretary of State visited the Vatican to meet His Holiness Pope Francis, and to receive a document signed by all faith leaders about their commitments on climate change. The United Kingdom is hosting the international ministerial conference on freedom of religion or belief, which I had the pleasure of signing off during my term in office. Will the Secretary of State and his Department work with the Foreign Office to ensure that the responsibility of faith leaders on climate change, and their work, is taken forward?

Rebecca Pow: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point, and I know the COP President will be happy to continue the work that is already under way.

Domestic Renewable Energy

Christine Jardine: What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on accelerating domestic renewable energy production to reduce carbon emissions and help ensure delivery of COP26 commitments.

Alok Sharma: The Government recently published the British energy security strategy, which sets out plans to turbocharge our clean energy transition. As I said earlier, the aim is to quintuple our offshore wind and solar PV capacities by 2030, while also significantly expanding nuclear and hydrogen. We aim to decarbonise our electricity sector fully by 2035.

Christine Jardine: While I welcome the Minister’s comments, all the evidence points to the fact that we need a drastic shift towards renewables if we are to meet our climate change commitment. What does he say about figures from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy that show a reduction in growth in renewable energy over the past few years, specifically in onshore wind? Will he commit to investing more in onshore wind, and to committing to hydrogen, so that all new housing developments are hydrogen capable when boilers are replaced and central heating systems are introduced?

Alok Sharma: As the hon. Lady knows, a lot of work is going on with hydrogen, and we published our hydrogen strategy last year. We have announced plans to double our available capacity to 10 GW of hydrogen production by 2030. We already have 14 GW of onshore wind deployed to date, and we have made it clear that we will be consulting this year on developing local partnerships for a number of other supportive communities that wish to host new onshore wind infrastructure. That will, of course, be in return for benefits, including lower energy bills.

Robert Halfon: With the international energy price so high, will my right hon. Friend help to cut the cost of living by either scrapping the green levies to help people pay their bills, or at least by introducing a downward green escalator, so that when the international energy price is high, the green levies reduce?

Alok Sharma: Taxation is obviously an issue for the Chancellor, but the Government are providing £37 billion-worth of support right now to help people with the cost of living, including energy bills. On green levies, I think they represent 8% of a dual fuel bill, a significant amount of which is going to vulnerable households through the warm home discount and other mechanisms. The reason energy prices are high right now and wholesale prices have risen by 300% to 400% is in large part due to what is happening with the illegal war in Ukraine.

Olivia Blake: We need a sprint on renewables, yet Ministers are barely breaking into a limp. In the latest round of contracts for difference, the Government implemented a cap of 12 GW on renewables, despite the industry reporting that 17.4 GW had been cleared for planning permission. That is 5.4 GW of shovel-ready, cheap, clean energy blocked. We are in an energy crisis. Why are the Government not firing on all cylinders to address it?

Alok Sharma: The Government are firing on all cylinders. If we had not been firing on all cylinders and got the second-biggest offshore wind sector in the world, we would now be reliant on Russian hydrocarbons, which we are not, unlike some other countries. The hon. Lady should welcome the progress that has been made and of course we want to do more.

Zero Emission Vehicles

Mark Pawsey: What progress he made at COP26 on supporting the transition to zero emission vehicles.

Alok Sharma: At COP26, the UK presidency launched the zero emission vehicles declaration. Over 140 parties, including Governments, vehicle manufacturers and businesses, committed to working together towards ensuring that all new car sales are zero emission by 2035 in leading car markets and by 2040 globally. We continue to gather signatories.

Mark Pawsey: The move from internal combustion to electric vehicles will only be successful with good access to infrastructure, but policy on parking at public charging stations rests with local authorities. Does the COP26 President agree that that should be restricted to electric vehicles, and will he join me in regretting that this is not currently the case in Warwickshire?

Alok Sharma: As my hon. Friend points out, parking policy enforcement is devolved to local authorities. He certainly makes an interesting point and I encourage him to raise it with the Department for Transport. Local authorities can, under a traffic regulation order under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, implement parking restrictions, for example dedicated electric vehicle bays.

Jim Shannon: On local government authorities, has consideration been given to a part-funded scheme allowing refuse vehicles coming near to end of life to be sourced as zero emission, with the cost offset to set the example for other businesses?

Alok Sharma: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. Perhaps I can write to him or get a fellow Minister to do so on this issue.

Topical Questions

Mark Pawsey: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Alok Sharma: Last month, I co-chaired a ministerial meeting with Egypt’s COP27 President-designate, bringing together almost 50 Governments to discuss progress on the implementation of countries’ COP26 commitments. We discussed the commitments to revisit 2030 emission reduction targets, finance, and work programmes on adaptation, loss and damage. While some progress has been made in turning commitments into action, countries need to significantly accelerate the pace of implementation on the road to COP27.

Mark Pawsey: On Friday, I joined the Rugby Green Christian group for a question time event to consider national and local responses to the challenges we face. Does the COP26 President agree that those discussions are essential to building local support for the measures the Government are taking?

Alok Sharma: I commend my hon. Friend for the work he is doing in this area and he is absolutely right. We can all play a part in tackling climate change. It is vital that we do so to make not only the environmental case but the very positive economic case for climate action.

Wera Hobhouse: Six days ago, the Government approved an application to draw gas in Dunsfold in Surrey, although the council had refused the application twice. Does the Minister agree that this decision by the Government to draw gas from a new gasfield in Surrey flies in the face of the commitment the UK Government made during COP26?

Alok Sharma: I refer the hon. Lady to the British energy security strategy, which sets out the very clear direction of travel towards a clean energy future for the UK.

Bob Blackman: I agree that action is much more important than just straight-forward commitments, so will the COP26 President update the House on the progress made on climate action at the G7 climate, energy and environment meeting?

Alok Sharma: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend about the need for commitments and action. I can confirm that at the G7 Ministers reaffirmed the key climate commitments that were made at COP26 and we also agreed to phase out the use of domestic coal and end G7 international fossil fuel finance by the end of 2022.

Sarah Green: As we have heard, the Government have recently given the green light for oil exploration in the Surrey Hills despite their own admission that it will degrade the quality of the setting of the Surrey Hills area of outstanding natural beauty. We have already seen the degradation of the Chilterns area of outstanding natural beauty in my constituency. Why are such new licences for oil and gas exploration still being issued and why do the Government continue to allow the destruction of our areas of outstanding natural beauty in the name of fossil fuel production?

Alok Sharma: Again, I make a wider point that we all need to consider. What is our future policy? Our future policy is all about clean energy. Again, I refer the hon. Lady to the energy security strategy, which sets that out very clearly.

Chris Clarkson: The UK is in the unique position of being able to become a net exporter of energy again. What progress has my right hon. Friend made towards developing green hydrogen, in particular, for the UK to export to the energy market?

Alok Sharma: My hon. Friend raises an important point. Of course, hydrogen is clearly part of our energy future. We set out our hydrogen strategy last year and, as he will know, in the energy security strategy we have doubled our ambition to 10 GW of low-carbon hydrogen production capacity by 2030. Internationally, we are working with partners through the COP26 breakthrough agenda to ensure that clean technologies such as hydrogen are affordable and accessible for all by 2030.

Neale Hanvey: The war in Ukraine, the Freeport LNG explosion and Nord Stream 1 pipeline issues caused a spike in wholesale gas prices overnight at 30%, announced at £2 a therm. Scotland is uniquely placed to assist in the response to this international shortage, but it must be  done responsibly and support carbon capture underground storage to meet net zero targets. After a very recent and helpful discussion with the Energy Minister, will the COP26 President meet me to discuss the opportunities in my constituency?

Alok Sharma: The hon. Gentleman knows that the North Sea Transition Authority launched the UK’s first ever carbon storage licensing round yesterday. I am very happy to meet him or to ensure that a Minister from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy meets him.

Philip Dunne: My right hon. Friend has just told the House that at the G20 meeting of environment and climate change Ministers, the agreement was reached to phase out global coal. Did he support that measure on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government?

Alok Sharma: As my right hon. Friend said, the agreement we reached was for the G7 to phase out domestic coal. Of course, we want to see that happen in developing economies across the world and that is why we are working, as we did with South Africa, to ensure that funding is made available to a number of other countries that are major emitters to ensure that they are able to make that transition to clean energy.

Peter Grant: Yesterday, RWE announced a partnership with SGN to investigate the provision of hydrogen gas to a number of off-grid small towns in Scotland. They are also investigating the development of a 100 MW hydrogen production plant at Markinch in my constituency, building on the world-leading H100 project in Methil. Will the COP26 President join me in welcoming this confirmation that Scotland leads the world in genuinely renewable energy technologies?

Alok Sharma: I think we should all be welcoming the fact that the UK leads the world when it comes to clean energy transition.

Felicity Buchan: If all the forest pledges made at COP26 are delivered, we will have achieved 10% of the emissions reductions that we need to stay within 1.5°, so nature is critical to achieving net zero. Will my right hon. Friend update the House on his ambitions for biodiversity at the COP15 summit?

Alok Sharma: We are working very closely on the issue. We want to ensure that there is a new framework for biodiversity. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that COP26 had a big focus on reversing deforestation and supporting biodiversity; we are continuing to press forward on that issue.

Lindsay Hoyle: Before we start Prime Minister’s questions, I remind Members of the service at St Margaret’s at 1 o’clock today to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the end of the Falklands war. I hope that as many hon. Members as possible will be able to attend.
I would also like to point out that the British Sign Language interpretation of proceedings on PMQs is available on parliamentlive.tv. [Interruption] Not that sign language!

Prime Minister

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Mike Wood: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 15 June.

Boris Johnson: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Mike Wood: Government support for households is greatly appreciated, but high energy costs are causing massive problems for businesses, particularly in energy-intensive manufacturing. Will the Prime Minister support the Repowering the Black Country initiative, which is backed by the local enterprise partnership and by Andy Street, to reduce reliance on fossil fuels? Will he meet me to look at how the Black Country can be a pilot project to decarbonise, reduce costs and protect the region’s manufacturing jobs?

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend is a great champion for Dudley and for the Black Country. In addition to the £1,200 for the 8 million most vulnerable households, we are providing £400 to help everybody with the cost of energy. We are supporting the Black Country with cost-efficient energy infrastructure, and the region has already received £1.5 million to develop a cluster plan for decarbonisation.

Lindsay Hoyle: We now come to the Leader of the Opposition.

Keir Starmer: May I pay tribute to all those who served in the Falklands? My uncle was among them, serving on HMS Antelope when it went down. Thankfully, he made it back, but too many serving in that war did not. We remember them all.
Britain is set for lower growth than every major economy except Russia. Why?

Boris Johnson: I will tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman: actually, according to the International Monetary Fund and the OECD, in addition to the fastest growth in the G7 last year, we are going to have the second fastest this year, and we will return to the top of the table. The reason that other countries are temporarily moving ahead is, of course, that we came out of the pandemic faster than they did, because we took the right decisions to come out of lockdown—which he opposed. That is why, right now, we have the highest number of people on payrolled employment on record.

Keir Starmer: The Prime Minister always likes to blame global forces, but global forces are just that: global—everybody faces them. Britain is not under crippling economic sanctions like Russia. No wonder he does not want to answer the question: why is the UK set for lower growth than every other major economy?

Boris Johnson: I think everybody can see that I have just answered the question. Once again, the right hon. Gentleman is guilty of what m’legal friends call “ignoratio elenchi”: he has failed to listen to what I have  actually said. What would be useful, in supporting the UK economy right now, would be if the leader of the Labour party ended his sphinx-like silence about the RMT’s strikes coming up in the course of the next couple of weeks. Will he now break with his shadow Transport Secretary and denounce Labour’s rail strikes?

Lindsay Hoyle: Just to remind the Prime Minister—he seems to have forgotten—it is Prime Minister’s questions, not Opposition questions.

Keir Starmer: He is in government. He could do something to stop the strikes, but he has not lifted a finger. I do not want the strikes to go ahead, but he does. He wants the country to grind to a halt so that he can feed off the division.
As for his boasting about the economy, he thinks he can perform Jedi mind tricks on the country—“These aren’t the droids you’re looking for”. “No rules were broken”. “The economy is booming”. The problem is, the Force just isn’t with him any more. He thinks he is Obi-Wan Kenobi; the truth is, he is Jabba the Hutt. Last week he stood there and boasted that we would continue to grow the economy. This week it turns out that the economy shrank for the second month in a row. How does it help Britain to have an ostrich Prime Minister with his head in the sand?

Boris Johnson: There he goes again, Mr Speaker, running this country down. We have got the highest employment—the highest payroll employment—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Look, I want to hear the questions and the answers. Whether you like it or not, but I genuinely believe it, the public who watch Prime Minister’s questions also want to hear both.

Boris Johnson: We have got lower unemployment than France, Germany, Italy or Canada. As I have said, we have the highest number of people in payroll jobs—620,000 more—since records began. The right hon. Gentleman might like to know that just in the first five months of this year, this country has attracted, I think, £16 billion of investment in its tech sector. He does not like these European comparisons; let us make them for him. That is three times as much as Germany, twice as much as France. He should be talking this country up, not running it down.[Official Report, 6 July 2022, Vol. 717, c. 12MC.]

Keir Starmer: That’s the ostrich. He is not just denying how bad things are; he is actively making things worse. His 15 tax rises are throttling growth and the Director of the CBI is so fed up that he is reduced to saying:
“Can we stop Operation Save Big Dog and…move to action stations on the economy?”
We know what the Prime Minister says about British business in private—I think that is pretty unparliamentary —but when did screwing business turn from a flippant comment into economic policy?

Boris Johnson: I just reminded the House of what is happening in tech week in this country—the massive investment that is coming in, helped, by the way, by the 130% super deduction for business investment that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has put in. Never forget, Mr Speaker, that under Labour, taxes go up on businesses and on people. We are not only putting  £1,200 more into people’s pockets; the right hon. Gentleman talks about taxes, and we are having a tax cut worth £330 on average for everybody who pays national insurance. Labour has already made spending commitments, in this Parliament alone, worth £94 billion more than the Government’s. That is £2,100 for every household in the country. No wonder no Labour Government have ever left office with unemployment lower than when they came in.

Keir Starmer: Fifteen tax rises, and we are saddled with the highest tax burden since rationing. He says the economy is booming when it is shrinking. He is game-playing so much, he thinks he is on “Love Island”. Trouble is, Prime Minister, I am reliably informed that contestants that give the public the ick get booted out.
It is not just low growth. He has also lost control of inflation. He was warned about this last September, and what did he do? He dismissed it; he did not act; he sat on his hands. Now prices are through the roof and we are set to have the highest inflation in the G7. When will he accept that he got it badly wrong when he claimed that worries about inflation were “unfounded”?

Boris Johnson: We are helping people with the cost of living with £1,200, and on 14 July the money will be going into people’s bank accounts. Why can we do that? Because we have the fiscal firepower to do it and because the economy is in robust shape, with record numbers of people in payroll employment. That is thanks to the steps that we took, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman continuously opposed. I will not say this interrogatively, Mr Speaker, but he has the chance now to clear this up. He can oppose Labour’s rail strikes right now—[Interruption.] He can disagree; I will give him that opportunity. Let him disagree with the union barons who would add to people’s costs in the coming weeks.

Keir Starmer: I do not want the strikes to go ahead. The Prime Minister does, so that he can feed on the division—[Interruption.] There may be a lot of noise now, but I have a long list of what his MPs really think of him. “Dragging everyone down.” Who said that? Come on! Who was it who said that? “Authority is destroyed.” Come on, hands up! Which of you was it? “Can’t win back trust.” Anybody owning up? You are very quiet now. Hands! Hands!
My personal favourite is this. It is a document circulated by his Back Benchers, in which they call him the “Conservative Corbyn”. Prime Minister, I don’t think that was intended as a compliment. Week after week, he stands there and spouts the same nonsense: the economy is booming, everything is going swimmingly, the people should be grateful. But while he is telling Britain that we have never had it so good, millions of working people and businesses know the reality. Britain’s growth is going to be slower than our competitors, and our inflation higher. A Prime Minister who sounds totally deluded, totally failing on the economy, failing to tackle—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I think we need to get to the end of the question, but I will just remind hon. Members that I will hear the end of the question in silence. Any more noise in this corner of the Chamber, and there will be another early cup of tea if we are not careful.

Keir Starmer: A Prime Minister who sounds totally deluded, totally failing the economy, failing to tackle inflation, failing to back business, failing to help working people through the crisis, and his big idea is to go back to imperial measurements. He has ’80s inflation and ’70s stagnation; now he wants ’60s weights to complete the set. When is he going to ditch the gimmicks and face up to the reality that, under him, Britain’s economy is going backwards?

Boris Johnson: rose—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Let us hear the Prime Minister.

Boris Johnson: A couple of quick points about Mr Corbyn—the right hon. Member for Islington North. First, the right hon. and learned Gentleman tried repeatedly to get him elected as Prime Minister. Secondly, speaking from experience, the right hon. Member for Islington North is relatively dynamic by comparison with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Dynamic and coherent—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. It might be helpful if the Prime Minister could speak to me. I am struggling to hear because of the noise on both sides, so please look towards the Chair; it will be easier for both of us.

Boris Johnson: What we are going to get on and do is continue to take the tough decisions to take this country forward—decisions that are on the side of the British people. The Opposition are blatantly on the side of the RMT union barons, when there are some ticket offices that barely sell one ticket per hour. We are on the side of the travelling public.
By the way, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not mentioned this, but they are on the side of the people traffickers who would risk people’s lives at sea, and we are on the side of people who come here safely and legally. They carp and snipe from the sidelines—that is what they have always done—and we take the big decisions to take this country forward. No matter how much welly the deputy Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), may ask him to apply, or how much welly he pretends to apply, that welly is always on the left foot.

Andrew Selous: Many areas like mine have already had massive new housing development with no commensurate increase in general practice—

Yasmin Qureshi: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Lindsay Hoyle: Sorry—a point of order? The hon. Lady has been here long enough to know that points of order come at the end.

Andrew Selous: Many areas—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Have a conversation later!

Andrew Selous: Many areas like mine have already had massive new housing development with no commensurate increase in general practice capacity. At one of my surgeries, which has double the recommended number of patients per GP, the bowel cancer diagnosis of a 51-year-old father of four was missed and is now  terminal. Getting this right is a life and death issue, so will the Prime Minister make sure that parts of the country that have already had massive new housing growth get the commensurate increase in general practice capacity that is only right and fair?

Boris Johnson: Yes, of course. We have 6,000 more doctors, 1,200 more GPs than this time last year and 11,800 more nurses, but we must make sure that areas with sensitive new development have the infrastructure and services, particularly medical services, that they need. The NHS has a statutory duty to take account of population growth. I know my hon. Friend has met my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary, and I will take this up personally to make sure we get a proper approach to this very important issue.

Ian Blackford: I join you and others, Mr Speaker, in remembering the Falklands conflict of 40 years ago and those like my colleague Keith Brown, the Scottish Justice Minister, who served there. In particular, our thoughts are with those who made the ultimate sacrifice.
Yesterday our First Minister started a national conversation on Scotland’s right to choose an independent future. When we look at nations like Iceland, Ireland, Norway and Denmark, it is clear that our neighbours are outperforming the United Kingdom. They deliver greater income equality, lower poverty rates and higher productivity, social mobility and business investment—the list goes on and on. The evidence is overwhelming: Scotland is being held back by Westminster.
Prime Minister, all those countries can use their powers of independence to create wealthier, fairer and greener societies. Why not Scotland?

Boris Johnson: I do not doubt the right hon. Gentleman’s talents as a conversationalist, but I think there are other subjects in the national conversation right now, including what we are doing to come through the aftershocks of covid with the strongest jobs-led recovery of any European economy. As I said, 620,000 more people across the whole UK are in payroll employment than before the pandemic began.
Another subject of national conversation is investment in our whole country. In Scotland and across the whole UK, as I mentioned, there is great investment in the tech sector, and the whole UK is standing strong together on the international stage and sticking up for the Ukrainians. Those are some of the things the country is also talking about.

Ian Blackford: Stronger together? Has the Prime Minister seen the pound? I think the financial markets have made their judgment on this Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister can afford to live in his own little world, his own little Britain, but people have to live with the reality of a failing Westminster system: a cost of living crisis that is worse in the UK than in any other G7 country; an inflation rate double that of France; the second worst economic growth forecast in the G20, behind only sanctioned Russia; and now the threat of a trade war with our European friends, triggered by a lawbreaking Prime Minister. That is not a vision for the future of Scotland.
Our nation is big enough, rich enough and smart enough. Is it not the case that Scotland simply cannot afford to remain trapped in the failing Westminster system? Stop the world, Scotland wants to get on.

Boris Johnson: I think the figures speak for themselves. The UK has record numbers of people in payroll employment. That is an astounding thing, when we consider where we were during the pandemic. That was because of the UK working well together, as the right hon. Gentleman will remember, on the vaccine roll-out and on the testing, on which Scotland and the rest of the country co-operated brilliantly.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about a trade war. What could be more foolish than a project that actually envisages trade barriers within parts of the United Kingdom? That is what we are trying to break down.

Craig Tracey: I was honoured to share part of the jubilee celebrations with Cohort 4, an inspirational mentoring and support group that provides life-changing support to a wide range of women, such as those who have, tragically, been victims of domestic violence or sexual abuse, or who suffer from mental health difficulties. Sadly, as a result of the pandemic, the need for those services has only grown, so will the Prime Minister join me in thanking Beverley and her team for the incredible work that they do at Cohort 4? Will he also set out what more the Government can do to support these organisations so that they can continue to deliver this vital care to vulnerable men and women across all our constituencies?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend, and I want to extend my thanks also to Beverley and everybody in Cohort 4 for what they are doing. The extra support that we are giving includes £140 million of funding for victims’ services and £47 million ring-fenced particularly for organisations such as Cohort 4. I say thank you to Cohort 4 and similar organisations for everything they do.

Edward Davey: May I join the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in paying tribute to our armed forces, and in sending our thanks and gratitude to the veterans of the Falklands war and their families?
Millions of families across our country are suffering because of the cost of living emergency. People in rural areas are especially hurting, bearing the brunt of record fuel price rises. The rural fuel duty relief scheme is supposed to help by taking money off the price of petrol, but some rural counties are not eligible, such as Cumbria, Shropshire and Devon—[Interruption.] The Conservative party does not want to hear ideas to help those people, and I think the people of Devon will take note because there are families and pensioners across rural counties who are missing out on this support. As petrol prices soar, will the Prime Minister accept our idea to help people in rural counties and expand rural fuel duty relief?

Boris Johnson: We cut fuel duty for everybody across the country by record sums. The right hon. Gentleman talks about pensioners; we are giving £850 more to every pensioner across the country. He talks about the cost of energy; everybody is going to get another £400 to help them with the costs of energy.
The blissful fact about the Liberal Democrats is that people do not actually know what their policies are. They are able to go around the country bamboozling the rural communities—not revealing that they are, in fact, in favour of massive new green taxes, which is what they want, and not revealing that they would like to go back, straightaway, into the common agricultural policy, with all the bureaucracy and all the costs that that entails. They do not say that on the doorstep.

Henry Smith: There are proposals for up to 10,000 housing units on flood-prone greenfield sites to the west of Ifield in my constituency that would also represent intolerable pressure on local services. May I have an assurance from the Prime Minister that as we update planning legislation, we will enshrine the “brownfield first” principle for new developments, and save our environments and our services?

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend is completely right. We encourage the use of suitable brownfield land, and our policy is brownfield first, everywhere and always.

Neale Hanvey: The Prime Minister will know from my recent correspondence that a Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath constituent, Ruth Zuccarello, is the sister of Jim Fitton, who is currently imprisoned in Iraq. He has been sentenced to 15 years for collecting some shards of pottery. The judge passing the sentence did not believe that Mr Fitton had any criminal intent. This has obvious and significant implications for Jim and his loved ones. Is the Prime Minister willing to meet me and other MPs who have constituents in Jim’s family to discuss the case, so that we can work in concert to resolve some of the issues?

Boris Johnson: I am really grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising Mr Fitton’s case. I have a great deal of sympathy with him. I will make sure that the hon. Gentleman gets a meeting with the relevant Minister as soon as possible.

Caroline Ansell: One of my youngest constituents, little Nellie Oakshott, is two years old and has been diagnosed with metachromatic leukodystrophy. Her very brave parents, Megan and Tom, are supporting a campaign for MLD to be added to the newborn blood spot test. Had it been included in the test, Nellie’s condition could have been treated. Now the family are squaring up to palliative care and planning to make every day count. Will the Prime Minister give his support to adding MLD to the heel-prick test, so that families can be spared the same heartbreak in future?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend very much. I know that everybody’s thoughts will be with Nellie and her parents, Tom and Megan, at this very difficult time. The UK National Screening Committee has received a request to look again at the conditions for doing an MLD test, and that is being reviewed right now. I will make sure that my hon. Friend gets a meeting as soon as possible with the relevant Minister.

Liz Twist: In just five days, rail passengers across the UK and in the north-east will face huge disruption— But on the eve of the biggest rail dispute in a generation, it has emerged  that Ministers have not held any talks whatsoever since March. I ask the Prime Minister: has he met trade unions and employers in the rail industry to attempt to bring the dispute to an end—yes or no?

Boris Johnson: I noticed that when one union baron was asked about this, he said, “I don’t negotiate with a Tory Government.” That is what he said, Mr Speaker. We all know how much money the Labour Front Benchers take from the RMT. We know why they are sitting on their hands during Labour’s rail strike. They should come out and condemn it.

Tom Randall: Today is Pension Credit Awareness Day. Pension credit is currently underclaimed, with about a quarter of those who are entitled to it not claiming it. Will my right hon. Friend join me in encouraging people in Gedling and throughout the country to check their eligibility and make that claim, so that we can get more money into the pockets of pensioners?

Boris Johnson: That is a very worthwhile and important campaign that my hon. Friend supports. Too many pensioners fail to take up their entitlements under pension credit. It can be worth an additional £3,300 a year, and the more we can do to make pensioners aware of it, the better.

Anna McMorrin: Mr Speaker,
“Why is it that the worst people often rise to the highest office and stay there?”
Not my words about the Prime Minister, but those of his newest appointment—his cost of living tsar. Families across Cardiff North who are crippled with sky-rocketing bills and are unable to afford even the most basic necessities all agree with him, saying, “This Prime Minister has to go.” If even the Prime Minister’s own tsar does not have faith in him, tell me why those who are struggling should.

Boris Johnson: The hon. Lady has asked that question repeatedly. Let me remind her that this is a Government who get on and deliver on our promises to the people—in particular, on getting Brexit done. I read the other day that she wants to go back into the single market and the customs union. If going back into the EU is the real policy of the Labour party, why will the Leader of the Opposition not admit it?

Edward Timpson: When our family adopted my two brothers in the 1980s, support for adopters, whether that be financial, therapeutic or professional, was minimal. By the time I became a family law barrister in the late 1990s, it really was not much better. Efforts since, particularly the adoption support fund from 2015 onwards, have improved the situation, but, as ever, there is much more that we can do. To that end, will my right hon. Friend look at making self-employed adopters eligible for statutory adoption pay so that they can also have a better and fairer start to family life?

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend is a great champion of adopters and all those who help to give children a loving and stable home. He is quite right, we have so far focused on supporting employed parents, but local  authorities have the power to provide discretionary payments equivalent to maternity allowance for self-employed adopters as well.

Kerry McCarthy: We know that, at times of economic hardship, suicide rates are likely to rise too. We saw that after the 2008 crash. As well as doing more to support people through the cost of living crisis, will the Prime Minister commit to doing more to support excellent suicide prevention campaigns such as CALM—the Campaign Against Living Miserably—and also implement Labour’s pledge to let anyone in need of it to be able to access mental health counselling within a month and to end waiting lists?

Boris Johnson: The hon. Lady is entirely right. We must focus ever more on mental health. That is why we are putting another £2.3 billion into supporting mental health, which includes suicide prevention and the many wonderful charities that help people with their conditions. All I can say is that it would be a good thing if, across the Floor of this House, we had support for the spending that we are putting in.

David Jones: The conflict in Ukraine and the consequent disruption of the supply chain in wheat have highlighted the need for the United Kingdom to become more self-sufficient in food. The Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill, which has its Second Reading this afternoon, will help create the conditions to enable English farmers to produce more food of higher quality. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the drive to self-sufficiency requires a UK-wide effort? Will he urge the devolved Administrations to adopt the provisions of the Bill, so that farmers across Britain can produce the food that the country needs?

Boris Johnson: My right hon. Friend is completely right that, currently, the Bill only applies to England. But, in a loving and sharing way, we are going to work with the devolved Administrations so that the whole of the UK can enjoy the benefits.

Sarah Champion: Mental health support is vital for victims of sexual crimes. When a Rotherham survivor, who is here today, reported her childhood abuse to the police, they told her not to go for counselling as it could be used against her in court. Your Attorney General, Prime Minister, is challenging the rules to make it even easier for defence teams to access victims’ counselling notes, which has an immediate chilling effect. Survivors should not be forced to choose between their mental health and justice. Prime Minister, please stop this.

Boris Johnson: I am very interested to hear what the hon. Lady says, and I will look at the evidence that she has. These are very sensitive and difficult issues, particularly with regard to defence cases. But if she looks at what is happening on rape and serious sexual offences, where we have had similar problems, she will see that we are gradually starting to see an improvement in the prosecution rates. That is because Departments across Whitehall are working together to take account of victims’ needs. I agree that the progress is not everything that I would like, but we are seeing progress.

Philip Dunne: My right hon. Friend may be aware that the Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust has recently submitted a revised outline business case in support of its £312 million capital allocation made by the Department of Health and Social Care four years ago. Does he agree that, in order to make progress and complete the ambitious hospital building programme, the NHS decision-making processes need to be not only levelled up, but speeded up?

Boris Johnson: My right hon. Friend certainly speaks for many in this House in wanting faster decisions on planning and the NHS, and that is what we are doing. We are pushing through, as he knows, 40 hospitals by the—[Interruption.] Forty hospitals we are building, and what that needs is the funding. I tactfully point out again that Members on the Opposition Benches are bellowing away, but they voted against the extra £39 billion that we are putting in.

Emma Lewell-Buck: My constituent Mr Singh’s identity has been stolen. His NHS records are being misused, but he has been advised that there is nothing the Health Secretary can do. Crimes are being committed in his name. The Home Secretary’s Department assured him that that would not affect his immigration status, yet recently he and his wife and children were detained by UK Border Force while travelling for a family holiday. Can the Prime Minister explain who in his Government is responsible for this chaotic incompetence?

Boris Johnson: I would be only too happy to look at this. I am very sorry for the experience Mr Singh and his family have had. The hon. Lady asks who is responsible: I am responsible, and I take responsibility. I will look at the case and I will make sure that she gets a proper answer from the Home Office and the immigration department.

Theresa May: My constituent Dominique Davies is the niece of Dom Phillips, the British journalist missing in Brazil alongside the indigenous expert Bruno Pereira. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the Government make this case a diplomatic priority, and that they work to do everything they can to ensure that the Brazilian authorities put in the resources necessary to uncover the truth and find out what has happened to Dom and Bruno?

Boris Johnson: I thank my right hon. Friend very much for representing the niece of Dom Phillips. Like everybody in this House, we are deeply concerned about what may have happened to him. Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office officials are working closely now with the Brazilian authorities following his disappearance on 5 June. The Minister responsible has raised the issue of the search and rescue effort repeatedly with Brazil’s Minister of Justice and Public Security; what we have told the Brazilians is that we stand ready to provide all the support that they may need.

Selaine Saxby: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you could advise me on how I can correct the record on the question from the right hon. Member for Kingston and  Surbiton (Ed Davey), who raised the matter of rural fuel duty relief and incorrectly advised that it was not available in Devon. In my North Devon constituency, which I on this side of the House clearly know quite well, fuel retailers in the EX35 postcode of Lynton have had access to the duty relief for some time. How might we address that situation?

Rosie Winterton: I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. The Chair is not responsible for points made by right hon. and hon. Members, but she has put her concerns on the record, so I suggest we leave it at that.

Edward Davey: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) for raising that point and—not directly, I think—pointing out that vast parts of Devon do not have rural fuel duty relief.

Rosie Winterton: I think this is becoming a continuation of Prime Minister’s questions, so we will leave it at that.

Yasmin Qureshi: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, in Prime Minister’s questions the Prime Minister said that the Leader of the Opposition was a supporter of people traffickers. I think that should be taken out of the record.

Rosie Winterton: I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. Frankly, the level of noise during PMQs meant that it was not possible for the Chair to hear everything, but I understand that the Prime Minister did say, as she says, that the Opposition were on the side of people traffickers. That seems to me—and, I have to say, to the Speaker—to fall well short of the good temper and moderation that should characterise our debates. I say to the Prime Minister and to all Members here that we need to refer to each other in this place in more respectful terms, and I am sure that that spirit will be adopted in the statement to come.

Angus MacNeil: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Speaking as Chair of the International Trade Committee, it was to the dismay of the Committee that we found out that the Government were to trigger the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 process on the Australia-UK free trade agreement before the scrutiny was finished. This is in the light of assurances in a letter to the Speaker of the House, assurances from a Department for International Trade Minister at the Dispatch Box on the Floor of the House on 17 November 2021, and assurances to the Committee itself that scrutiny would be allowed to happen before CRAG was triggered. This has not happened. What is happening is that the UK is opening and rolling out the red carpet to Australian exporters to the UK while Australia is not ratifying. We in the Committee feel that there should be a vote, at the very least, to delay CRAG. Can you advise us, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how best we can achieve that end?

Rosie Winterton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. It did not relate directly to PMQs, so it should actually have been taken later. However, Ministers should obviously stick to commitments that they have made, and I am sure that he will find a number of ways to further the points that he has made.

Migration and Economic Development Partnership with Rwanda

Priti Patel: With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the Government’s world-leading migration and economic development partnership with Rwanda.
The British people have repeatedly voted for controlled immigration and the right to secure borders. This is a Government who act and hear that message clearly, and we are determined to deliver that. Last night we aimed to relocate the first people from our country who arrived here through dangerous and illegal means, including by small boat. Over the course of this week, many and various claims to prevent relocation have been brought forward. I welcomed the decisions of our domestic courts—the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court—to uphold our right to send the flight. However, following a decision by an out-of-hours judge in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, minutes before our flight’s departure, the final individuals remaining on the flight had their removal directions paused while their claims were considered.
I want to make something absolutely clear: the European Court of Human Rights did not rule that the policy or relocations were unlawful, but it prohibited the removal of three of those on last night’s flight. Those prohibitions last for different time periods but are not an absolute bar on their transfer to Rwanda. Anyone who has been ordered to be released by the court will be tagged while we continue to progress their relocation. While this decision by the Strasbourg court to intervene was disappointing and surprising given the repeated and considered judgments to the contrary in our domestic courts, we remain committed to this policy. These repeated legal barriers are very similar to those that we experience with all other removal flights. We believe that we are fully compliant with our domestic and international obligations, and preparations for our future flights and the next flights have already begun. Our domestic courts were of the view that the flight could go ahead.
The case for our partnership with Rwanda bears repeating. We are a generous and welcoming country, as has been shown time and time again. Over 200,000 people have used safe and legal routes to come to the UK since 2015, and most recently Britons have opened their hearts and their homes to Afghan nationals and Ukrainian nationals. But our capacity to help those in need is severely compromised by those who come here illegally and, as we have discussed in this House many, many times, seek to jump the queue because they can afford to pay the people smugglers. It is illegal, and it is not necessary, because they are coming from other safe countries. It is not fair, either on those who play by the rules or on the British taxpayers who have to foot this bill. We cannot keep on spending nearly £5 million a day on accommodation, including hotels. We cannot accept this intolerable pressure on public services and local communities. It makes us less safe as nation, because those who come here illegally do not have the regularised checks or even the regularised status and because evil people-smuggling gangs use the proceeds of their ill-gotten gains to fund other appalling crimes that undermine the security of our country. It is also  lethally dangerous for those who are smuggled. People have drowned at sea, suffocated in lorries and perished crossing territories.
The humane, decent and moral response to all this is simply not to stand by and let people drown or be sold into slavery or smuggled, but to stop it. With that, inaction is not an option—or at least, not a morally responsible one. This is, as I have said repeatedly, a complex, long-standing problem. The global asylum system is broken and between 80 million and 100 million people are now displaced, and others are on the move seeking better economic opportunities. An international problem requires international solutions.
The UK and Rwanda have shown the way forward by working together, and this partnership sends a clear message that illegal entry will not be tolerated, while offering a practical, humane way forward for those who arrive to the UK via illegal routes. It has saddened me to see Rwanda so terribly misrepresented and traduced in recent weeks. It is another example of how all too often, critics not only do not know what they are speaking about, but seek to vilify another country that has a good track record when it comes to refugees and stepping up to international responsibilities.
Rwanda is a safe and secure country with an outstanding track record of supporting refugees and asylum seekers. Indeed, we are proud that we are working together, proud that the UK is investing in Rwanda and helping that great country to thrive, and proud that those who are relocated to Rwanda will have an opportunity to thrive as well. They will be given generous support, including language skills, vocational training and help with starting their own businesses or finding employment, but I am afraid that the usual suspects, with the blessings of Opposition Members, have set out to thwart and even campaign against these efforts and, with that, the will of the British people.
It would be wrong to issue a running commentary on ongoing cases, but I would like to say this: this Government will not be deterred from doing the right thing, we will not be put off by the inevitable last-minute legal challenges, and nor will we allow mobs to block removals. We will not stand idly by and let organised crime gangs, who are despicable in their nature and their conduct—evil people—treat human beings as cargo. We will not accept that we have no right to control our borders. We will do everything necessary to keep this country safe, and we will continue our long and proud tradition of helping those in genuine need.
Many of us have met refugees, both abroad and on British soil, and listened to the stories that are frankly chilling and heartbreaking. It suits Opposition Members to pretend that those on this side of the House do not care, but as you referred to in the earlier point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, on this side of the House such accusations are a grotesque slur. What is truly chilling is listening to opponents going on about how awful this policy is while offering no practical solutions while lives are being lost.
Helping to develop safe and legal routes to this country for those who really need them is at the heart of this Government’s work. Having overseen efforts to bring to the UK thousands of people in absolute need, including from Hong Kong, Syria, Afghanistan and Ukraine, I am the first to say that controlled immigration, including by refugees, is good and outstanding for our country, but we simply have to focus on supporting  those who need it most, and not those who have picked the UK as a destination over a safe country such as France. It is no use pretending that those people are fleeing persecution when they are travelling from a safe country.
Our capacity to help is not infinite, and public support for the asylum system will be fatally undermined if we do not act. The critics of the migration and economic development partnership have no alternative proposal to deal with uncontrolled immigration. As on so many other issues, the Labour party and the SNP are on the wrong side of the argument. With their arguments, we would see public trust in the system only being corroded. That is irresponsible and utterly indifferent to those who we seek to help and support.
I have always said that I will look at all proposals to reduce illegal migration and illegal entry to our country, even those that Opposition Members might put forward, although we are still waiting for them. [Interruption.] Fundamentally, the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) and others do not think there is a problem, which is why they do not have a solution. They still stand for open borders—pure and simple. Meanwhile, this Government want to get on with not just delivering what the British people want, but reforming our systems so that they are firm and fair for those who pay for them and those who need our help and support.

Yvette Cooper: This is a shambles; it is shameful, and the Home Secretary has no one but herself to blame. This is not, and never has been, a serious policy, and she knew that when she chartered the plane. She knew that among the people she was planning to send to Rwanda on that plane were torture and trafficking victims, that she did not have a proper screening process in place and that some of them might be children. Can she confirm that the Home Office itself withdrew a whole series of those cases on Friday and yesterday because it knew that there was a problem with them, and that even without the European Court of Human Rights judgment, she was planning to send a plane with just seven people on board, because she had had to withdraw most of the cases at the last minute?
The Home Secretary knows that there is a lack of proper asylum capacity in Rwanda to make fair decisions and that as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees says, Rwanda normally deals with only a few hundred cases a year and has only one eligibility officer who prepares the cases. There is also a lack of interpreters and legal advisers to ensure fair decisions. The Home Secretary promised that there would be extra payments to Rwanda for each person transferred, presumably to pay for the extra caseworkers and support, but she has refused to tell us how much. What is she hiding? Will she tell us now how much she promised Rwanda for each of the people she was planning to send yesterday, and how many Rwandan refugees she promised to take in return?
The Home Secretary knows that serious concerns have been raised about Rwandan restrictions on political freedom, the treatment of LGBT people, the fact that  12 refugees were shot by the authorities in 2018 for protesting against food cuts, and the fact that Afghan and Syrian asylum seekers have been returned by Rwanda. She knows that none of those concerns has been addressed.
The Home Secretary also knows that the policy will not work. We need action to tackle dangerous criminal gangs who are putting lives at risk, and she knows that her policies will not achieve that. That is not their objective. If it was, she would not have asked the National Crime Agency, whose job it is to target the criminal gangs, to draw up 20% staff cuts—that is potentially 1,000 people being cut from the organisation that works to tackle the gangs. Can she confirm whether she has asked the NCA to draw up plans for staff cuts?
If the Home Secretary was serious, she would be taking seriously the fact that the Israel-Rwanda deal ended up increasing criminal people trafficking and smuggling and that her plan risks making things worse. If she was serious, she would be working night and day to get a better joint plan with France to crack down on the gangs and to stop the boats being put into the water in the first place, but she is not, because her relationship with French Ministers has totally broken down.
If the Home Secretary was serious about tackling illegal economic migration or cutting the bills from people in hotels, she would speed up Home Office decision making so that refugees can get support and those who are not can be returned home. Instead, the number of decisions has totally collapsed from 28,000 to just 14,000 a year—fewer than Belgium and the Netherlands, never mind Germany and France. She is so badly failing to take those basic decisions that she is trying to pay a country thousands of miles away to take them for us instead. How shameful does that make us look around the world if our Home Office cannot take those basic decisions?
The Home Secretary knew about problem after problem with her policy. She knew that it was unworkable and unethical and that it will not stop the criminal gangs, but she still went ahead and spent half a million pounds chartering a plane that she never expected to fly, and she still wrote a £120 million cheque to Rwanda with a promise of more to come, because all she really cares about is picking fights and finding someone else to blame.
This is not a long-term plan; it is a short-term stunt. Everyone can see that it is not serious policy; it is shameless posturing and the Home Secretary knows it. It is not building consensus; it is just pursuing division. It is government by gimmick. It is not in the public interest; it is just in the Government’s political interest, and along the way they are prepared to trash people’s lives, our basic British values of fairness, decency and common sense, and the reputation of our nation.
Our country is better than this. We have a long tradition of hard work and stepping up to tackle problems—not offloading them—to tackle the criminal gangs who put lives at risk, and to do right by refugees. That is what the Home Secretary should be doing now, not this shambles that is putting our country to shame.

Priti Patel: I always look forward to these exchanges in the House, primarily because—[Interruption.] Perhaps hon. Members would like to listen.
As a point of education for the right hon. Lady, we are not the only country in the world to be adopting this approach. She may be aware that it is an approach that the EU has adopted through its transfer mechanism  to Rwanda. Denmark is also in the process of looking at it.
The right hon. Lady raises a number of points that are factually incorrect. [Interruption.] I will come to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East shortly. The purpose of the work that we are doing is to absolutely break the business model of the people smugglers. It is a shame that Opposition Members run down the National Crime Agency.

Hon. Members:: You are running it down!

Priti Patel: Calm down a second. Actually the UK intelligence community are working together to tackle the people smugglers upstream, and we are investing in upstream programmes to tackle the people smugglers.
I have more to say on this subject, of course. Opposition Members keep speaking about asylum seekers who have travelled from Iran, Iraq and other countries, but of course, they have come from France—a safe country. They have not come from Iraq; they have come from France. In the same way, the right hon. Lady said that people have come from Syria; they have come from France and they have paid people smugglers.
Opposition Members do not claim that it is immoral to send people back to European countries for their claims to be considered there. Their logic seems to be that Rwanda is a wonderful country that is good enough to host international summits and world dignitaries, but not to relocate people there, as our global partnership does.
Opposition Members know that people are dying in the channel, but they simply do not have a single workable solution between them. They are choosing sides while the Government are committed to pioneering a way forward. They are clutching at straws when they speak about money, but of course we cannot put a price on lives being lost. We believe in saving lives and breaking the people smuggling model.
On the legal claims that I think the right hon. Lady was referring to—pre-action protocol and national referral mechanism claims—I do not remember her making those points with that synthetic hypothetical rage when she occupied my seat under a previous Labour Government. That Government brought in Acts and powers, including the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004, to remove people with no legal basis to be in this country. These are the same powers that we are using to remove individuals with no legal right to be in this country, and of course these are exactly the same powers that, only recently and again today, she was saying could be used if we had not left the EU.
Yet again, the right hon. Lady talks about the policy being unworkable and extortionate, but it cannot be both, because clearly, as we have said from the outset, this is a partnership based on working with Rwanda. If I may say so, there is nothing more inhumane than   turning a blind eye to those who are being smuggled not just across the channel but in lorries, and we have a global collective responsibility to work with international partners, on which the Labour party has clearly shut the door firmly.

Mike Penning: Let me say from the outset that I know the shadow Secretary of State very well, and she is much, much better than some of the comments she came out with today.
I say to the Home Secretary that I was a child in school when people came to this country from Vietnam and from Hong Kong, as well as from Africa, but this is different. This Parliament is supreme, and our courts have said this is right. This is what the British people want us to do—control immigration in relation to those coming across in boats—so how is it right that this Court has overruled all our courts and this Parliament?

Priti Patel: My right hon. Friend makes some very important points. He speaks of the generosity of our country, and I stand by that. I think this Government’s record speaks very strongly on supporting people from Afghanistan, Syria, Hong Kong, Ukraine, and the hundreds of thousands of people whom we have supported. He rightly speaks about our domestic courts in the same way as I did in my statement, and it is important to note that the courts have not challenged the legality of our policy.
In fact, I use this moment to pay tribute, which the Opposition parties will not do, to our officials in the Home Office, both in-country and here, for their work on developing the programme and on evidencing the legality of the policy, and how they have worked with Rwanda as a country on its capability and capacity to house people.
These arguments have been challenged in the courts and they have been well heard in the courts. If I may make one final point, our domestic courts have been transparent in their decision making and how they have communicated their verdicts from the High Court, the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal. What is concerning is the opaque nature of the conduct of last night’s appeal by the European Court of Human Rights in the way that it informed the UK Government about one individual. It is now right that we spend time going back to that Court to get the grounds upon which it made its decision.

Rosie Winterton: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Stuart McDonald: My party continues to deplore this unworkable, illegal and immoral policy. It does nothing to stop smugglers and it inflicts serious harm on victims, despite the Home Secretary’s cloud cuckoo land description of it. We wholeheartedly welcome the cancellation of this flight, and we condemn the reckless approach that the Home Secretary has taken to taxpayers’ money and, more importantly, to the rule of law.
May I take a moment to commend the lawyers involved for their incredible work in the face of some utterly inappropriate commentary from the top of Government? Will the Home Secretary tell her colleagues to heed the   call from the Law Society and the Bar Council, and stop attacks on legal professionals who are simply doing their job?
It is not the lawyers who caused this flight to be cancelled nor any court; this flight was stopped because of the stench of yet more Government illegality. [Interruption.] It was. Even the most ardent supporters of this dreadful policy must recognise that there is, to put it mildly, massive dubiety over its lawfulness. The UNHCR, the guardian of the refugee convention, is clear that this is in breach of it. To seek to press ahead before the courts have concluded that issue either way was a reckless waste of taxpayers’ money and shows again this Government’s total disregard for the rule of law.
The Home Secretary should call this off now, and wait for that Court ruling. That is all we are asking for in the meantime. She should start answering the basic questions that we did not get answers to on Monday, such as about oversight, age assessments, and screening for torture survivors and trafficking victims. This is a dreadful mess.
Inevitably, this pitiful policy failure will now, wrongly, be blamed by the usual suspects on the European convention on human rights, so will the Home Secretary recognise what the Prime Minister previously said about the convention being a “great thing”? Will she recognise its importance for devolution, for the Good Friday agreement and for the trade and co-operation agreement, and call off the agitators in her party who want the UK to follow Russia and Belarus through the exit door and on to pariah state status?

Priti Patel: As ever—tone is important, if I may say so, in this debate—we respectfully disagree with the hon. Gentleman and his party wholeheartedly. As we have heard throughout the debates on this subject previously, but also on the Nationality and Borders Act, as it now is—thanks to the support we have had from Government Members to deal with smuggling and trafficking, and to change our laws—it is quite clear that the SNP would like to see an end to all removals and all deportations, irrespective of their basis, full stop. That is obviously its policy, and it would like open borders.
It is important to put it on the record that the European Court of Human Rights has not ruled that the policy or removals were unlawful, but it actually prohibited the removal of three of those on the flight last night. That was at the end—

Stuart McDonald: Wait for the ruling!

Priti Patel: And, if I may say so, we have asked for that ruling in writing, so we are waiting for that, but those prohibitions are different from the other claims that came up from lawyers—at the very last minute actually—yesterday.
It is also important to recognise that the first ruling provoked those solicitors involved to then go back to the courts to apply for more injunctions for the remaining people on the manifest. Therefore, before all Opposition parties start to condemn a policy that the courts have not ruled as unlawful, it is important that our approach is absolutely proportionate and measured.

Natalie Elphicke: Last November, I stood on Dover seafront and mourned 27 people who had drowned in the English channel. Of those people, who had been travelling in these small boats—these unseaworthy vessels—seven were women, one was a teenager and one was a seven-year-old child. In addition, up to 166 are feared to have lost their lives or are missing across the channel: people who were safe already, in France. Overnight, many of my constituents have been in touch with me anguished at developments that have occurred to stop effective action to tackle the crossings. May I urge my right hon. Friend to continue to do everything possible to bring an end to these dangerous journeys, and ask her what representations she has received from the Labour party supporting action to bring these crossings to an end and save lives?

Priti Patel: I thank my hon. Friend for the very thoughtful way in which she has made her points and asked her question. In particular, I want to pay tribute to her and to her constituents, because they are on the frontline. I have spent a great deal of time both in my hon. Friend’s constituency and with her, and with the professionals in her constituency—not just in Border Force or on the frontline on the coast, but in her local authority—who do a great deal of work when it comes to housing, providing sanctuary and providing support. We should take this moment to pay tribute to them, because they are on the frontline day in and day out, it is fair to say. I also want to commend them for the way they work with Home Office officials and our operational teams.
My hon. Friend speaks very strongly and powerfully about the lives that have been lost, and I think the House should recognise that this is not just about those crossing the channel. It is about those crossing the Mediterranean, going through European countries and sometimes even those going through parts of Africa and the Sahel. The conditions are absolutely appalling. On that journey I have just spelt out—from north Africa and the Sahel, crossing the Mediterranean and going to EU member states—the EU member states are safe countries, and this is the model that we have to break.
It is a fact—we know this through intelligence work and the UK intelligence network—that a lot of those gangs are based in European member states. While I cannot speak in more detail about the wider work that has taken place, a lot of good, solid co-operation led by this Government has spurred action in EU member states to deal with the smuggling gangs, go after the smugglers, and ensure they are prosecuted.

Rosie Winterton: I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, Dame Diana Johnson.

Diana R. Johnson: The permanent secretary refused to sign off the Rwanda policy on the basis of a lack of evidence of value for money for the taxpayer. That is only the second time in 30 years that the most senior civil servant in the Home Office has had to be ordered by the Home Secretary to implement a policy.
In light of those concerns about wasting public money, will the Home Secretary confirm that on top of the payment of £120 million to Rwanda, the taxpayer will  also now be picking up the £0.5 million cost of the flight last night, and all subsequent charter planes, whether they take off or not? Will there be additional payments to Rwanda for people whom Rwanda is expecting, whether or not those people actually arrive?

Priti Patel: First, on our accounting officer advice, we should always put this in the context of asylum costs that are soaring across the United Kingdom—and have been for many years because of the number of people coming here illegally—and the costs and strain that that puts on the system, particularly during the pandemic. As Chair of the Home Affairs Committee—this issue has been discussed in the Committee many times, including when it was chaired by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper)—the right hon. Lady will know about the impact of covid on asylum claims. She also asked about payments, but we do not speak about operational costs right now—[Interruption.] Yes, it is taxpayers’ money. That is for a range of reasons, but primarily because of commercial sensitivities in terms of how we run our operations.
The House should recognise that when we have mob rule turning up to thwart our charter flights—some of them have ended up in courts—it is right that we keep our commercial operators, and the way they work with the Home Office, confidential. The right hon. Lady asked about payment mechanisms to Rwanda as part of the partnership deal, and we would be happy to drop her a line and share that information with her.

Peter Bone: People who are trafficked into this country, or duped or coerced, are exploited for sexual or labour purposes. People who are smuggled into this country willingly pay to be so, and come for economic purposes. The first group are victims and deserve the protection of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. The second group are not, and deserve no protection from that Act, which is being abused by people who are coming across in small boats. I hope the Home Secretary can sort this out.

Priti Patel: I thank my hon. Friend for his work on this issue, for which he is a committed and passionate advocate, and for the way he has worked with us in the Home Office on many of these challenging issues. There is a difference between trafficking and smuggling, and he is aware of some of the issues that have been materially rising over a number of years, and that thwart the removal and deportations not just of people who come to our country illegally, but also of foreign national offenders. He is referring to the national referral mechanism, and many of the challenges that are now used—with intent, it is fair to say—by some of the specialist law firms in the claims being made.
I look forward to continuing to work with my hon. Friend, because it is clearly in our national interest to ensure that the right safeguards are in place for people who need our help and support. That is what the Modern Day Slavery Act is about, and we cannot allow people to exploit it for the wrong aims.

Alistair Carmichael: Why does the Home Secretary say, as she did in her statement, that “It is no use pretending that those people are fleeing persecution” when they are not? She will be aware that Home Office figures state that 98% of  those who make the channel crossing claim asylum, and that 64% of asylum applications are granted at first instance, rising to almost 80% after appeal. There are only three options here: either the Home Secretary in demonising those people is making an incorrect statement, or the Home Office figures are incorrect, or the Home Office is granting asylum applications to people who are not fleeing persecution. Which is it?

Priti Patel: If I may, there is a fourth option, which is that the right hon. Gentleman is wrong on all counts. The individuals coming over the channel are coming from a safe country, which is France. He will be aware, from debates we have had in the House about our Nationality and Borders Act 2022, about the changes being made to immigration courts and tribunals to stop the repeated claims that go through the courts, and to speed up processes and bring the scrutiny that is needed to stop claim after claim. We have just spoken about the exploitation of our system, which we have to stop. That is part of the measures and changes that this Government are determined to bring in, as well as long-term reform of our asylum system, which the right hon. Gentleman and his party, and Labour Members, voted against.

Kevin Hollinrake: In the absence of any practical, workable policies on this issue from the Opposition, I absolutely support the Home Secretary’s policy on Rwanda, and on the establishment of reception centres in the UK, rather than asylum seekers being housed in hotels. Does she agree, however, that those reception centres must be in the right location, so that they do not present an unfair or undue burden on any one community, including the 600 people who live in Linton-on-Ouse and who are expecting an intake of up to 1,500 young single men right in the centre of that village? Does she agree that that policy should be reconsidered?

Priti Patel: I thank my hon. Friend. We have been discussing this issue for some time and working together on it, and it is incredibly important, particularly for his constituents. He has raised with great candour some of the challenges that he feels his constituents will face, and I have committed to working with him on that. There is no doubt that reception centres are the right way forward, so much so that, as the House will be interested to know, the European Commission has been paying up to €500 million, or even more, for EU member states to build reception centres. We must also have the right provisions and facilities within those reception centres, and that is exactly what we are working to achieve.

Chi Onwurah: Last week I finally received a response to an immigration query that my office sent last August. I have an asylum seeker who has waited 18 months just for an interview, which he still has not had, and many constituents are desperately looking for passports that have failed to arrive. The Home Secretary is spending millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money on a policy that is as unworkable as it is inhumane. Why does she not put the work in and fix the issues in her Department of process and resource, instead of hiding her incompetence behind desperate refugees?

Priti Patel: I will politely disagree with the hon. Lady, for a change. She asked about the asylum case—bear in mind that the Labour party supported being locked down throughout the pandemic for even longer than the Conservative party did—and she will know perfectly well that asylum decisions were not made during the pandemic, and that interviews were not granted because many of them were face to face. We have now reformed the system to put many more interviews online and things of that nature. That is the nature of the pandemic. We are building on that work, as she will know, and it is a shame that she voted against asylum reforms and the new plan for immigration.
The hon. Lady mentioned passports, and I sure she would welcome the resources in people and staff, the work that has taken place with the Passport Office, and the increase in demand. More blue passports will be issued this year, compared with previous years—[[Interruption.] It is clear that Labour Members like to run down civil servants, and the hard work of people in the Home Office. [Interruption.] Perhaps they can stop the finger pointing. We work together as a team to deliver for the British people, and it is such a shame that Labour Members constantly vote against those changes and measures.

Andrew Murrison: The European convention on human rights was started in the early 1950s, notably with the involvement of British lawyers, for very good reason, but does the Home Secretary agree with me that last night’s decision by the European Court of Human Rights undermined the original purpose of the convention and that the Court stands the very real risk of losing the confidence of the British people as it seeks to undermine our domestic legal structures?

Priti Patel: My right hon. Friend makes a very strong and important point. I have touched on the fact that, from the High Court to the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, our policy—we know that there will be more legal action—has not been found to be unlawful. There are very, very strong submissions based on the evidence: the work that has taken place in country—in Rwanda—on the efficacy not just of the policy but on the delivery of the policy in country. That is absolutely right. I think the public will be surprised, there is no doubt about that.
It is important to be cautious right now because of legal proceedings. I will just finally say clearly that we are in touch with the European Court of Human Rights, because we want to see its judgment and decision in writing, which we have not had yet. As I said earlier, it is concerning, when the British courts have been so public in terms of providing their summary and their positions, that last night’s decision making was very opaque.

Clive Efford: Yesterday, 444 people made the dangerous crossing in small boats, which suggests that the deterrent effect of this policy is not getting through. That is the highest number in two months, since 681 crossed the day after the Home Secretary announced this policy. Does that not suggest that this is not the time for her to be cutting the National Crime Agency? Do we not need a bit of joined-up thinking on dealing with this situation and the illegal traffickers?

Priti Patel: This is also not the time to sit on our hands and do nothing. The Government are determined to address these issues and work with all our agencies—intelligence agencies, crime agencies and law enforcement agencies—to go after the people smugglers, which, quite frankly, seems to be a policy the Labour party does not support.

Desmond Swayne: Notwithstanding the niceties of this particular judgment, we are going to have to grasp the nettle and extend the principle of taking back control to the convention, aren’t we?

Priti Patel: My right hon. Friend is trying to tempt me. He will know my own full-hearted views on taking back control, but also on the need for controlled migration, which is at the heart of the work the Government are bringing forward. With that, of course, we must build on our Brexit opportunities, which quite frankly, as we keep learning day in, day out, the Labour party wants to completely destroy: it wants to take us back into the EU.

Caroline Lucas: The Home Secretary has the gall to talk about a moral response to this situation. The moral response would be to provide safe and legal routes for those people who are exercising their legal right—their legal right—to seek asylum. The Government do not even have a basic monitoring and safety process in place for this ugly policy. The monitoring committee promised in their memorandum of under-standing with Rwanda is still not going to be set up for several months. She is not even exercising the most basic care. Is that because she knows full well that, if she did, no decent committee or procedure would ever agree to trade refugees in this despicable way?

Priti Patel: I want to come back to the grotesque mis-characterisation of the country in question, Rwanda. It is a shame and a stain, actually.

Caroline Lucas: I haven’t said anything about Rwanda.

Priti Patel: The hon. Lady may like to read the country report, and the work that has been done in country and in terms of the monitoring committee. That work is actually taking place and we have had officials in country for weeks and weeks in the two months, not several months, since we made this announcement.

Kelly Tolhurst: May I commend my right hon. Friend for her determination to find solutions to the very real problem facing our shores, and for trying to break the model of people smugglers taking advantage of incredibly vulnerable people? Today, I have heard the same old story from Labour: no solutions, not standing up for Britain, and definitely not thinking about what my constituents want. Can she assure me and my constituents that she will continue in her determination to find the solutions to resolve these awful crimes that are happening on our coast?

Priti Patel: I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. She is a Kent MP, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke), and I know exactly how strongly her constituents feel about this issue and  the impact on constituencies in Kent—I sometimes think Labour Members forget about that. She asks me about our determination. Our resolution is strong. We will continue with not just our work, but our commitment to break up the people-smuggling gangs.
Finally, it is a real shame, but it is worth leaving the House with this point right now. Over the weekend, we have seen mob rule—including, actually, Labour councillors in London engaging in mob rule—to stop people being removed from our country and to stop immigration enforcement action against those with no legal basis to be in our country. We are determined to do the right thing, despite the synthetic outrage we get from many Opposition Members and, quite frankly, some of the appalling protests we have seen involving political activism from the Labour party.

Andrew Slaughter: As Home Secretary, the right hon. Lady has a responsibility to uphold the rule of law. She cannot only approve of courts when they make decisions in her favour. Will she take this opportunity to affirm her support for the whole of the justice system, including the European Court of Human Rights and our membership of the European convention? All we have heard from her today are smears and mudslinging directed at lawyers, courts and judges.

Priti Patel: I would like put the hon. Gentleman’s comments into some context.

Andrew Slaughter: Answer the question!

Priti Patel: I am speaking to the hon. Member directly through the Chair. He may want to calm down his synthetic outrage. I have not made a single slur about our judges or our courts. I have spoken about the processes of the courts and it is right that we do that.
Secondly, as you have heard me say already, Madam Deputy Speaker, there are legal processes taking place right now. It is absolutely right that we wait for the judgments to come forward, so that we work with the courts and our legal counsels in the right way, rather than, if I may say so, participating in the sort of faux and synthetic yelling match that is taking place in the Labour party.

Bob Blackman: There is nothing more inhumane than evil people smugglers forcing people on to small boats and crossing the busiest sea lane in the world, placing them at risk. It is also inhumane to keep people waiting for months, months and months for a decision. I understand that only 130 individuals were issued with protective notices. May I urge my right hon. Friend to speed up the process and to issue thousands of these notices to put people on notice, and then get people over to Rwanda so that their cases can be resolved?

Priti Patel: My hon. Friend makes a very important point and I agree with him. It is not just about our processes but, as we are seeing now through legal challenges, it is about ensuring that we work in the right way to make sure that, from an end-to-end perspective, everything is joined up. That is, effectively, what we will been doing through the challenges that have come forward. It is important, just as a point of reflection, that my hon. Friend speaks about asylum cases. That is why we are reforming our asylum system. That is what the new plan  for immigration was about, supported by those on the Government Benches, supported by the British public, and constantly voted against by those on the Opposition Benches.

Paula Barker: It is fascinating that the Home Secretary talks endlessly about refugees travelling from France when it is such a safe country. The memorandum of understanding that the Home Secretary signed makes it clear that the UK will settle some of Rwanda’s most vulnerable refugees and the Home Office has briefed that that could be up to 50 people. When will those refugees be arriving in Britain and, more importantly, on the basis of the Home Secretary’s argument, why do they need to when Rwanda is such a safe country?

Priti Patel: I appreciate that the hon. Lady is speaking in very general terms, but there are specific cases that the Rwandan authorities have raised with us of people fleeing persecution in the region. As we have said, we are always a welcoming country and we look at those who need our help and support. Because of the political situation in the region—there is a difference there—the Rwandan Government have asked us to work with them on specific cases. We will do that, because it is the right thing to do.

Daniel Kawczynski: I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for showing the courage to implement this policy. I know that she is awaiting the final adjudication from the European Court, but when that is through, finally, will she show the same courage in making sure that she starts a debate in the Cabinet about leaving the European convention on human rights? Maritime law is predicated on English law, many financial centres around the world use English law and many international disputes come to Britain to use British law. The fact that our Supreme Court decision has been thwarted in this way means that it is now time to consider leaving the European convention on human rights.

Priti Patel: My hon. Friend has made an important point about the standing of the UK’s legal system in the world. It is one of the best in the world. If we look at common law, commercial law—you name it—many countries look to us and our legal systems and processes and the incredibly high standards that we have. That is absolutely right.
It would be wrong of me to comment any further, particularly in the context of this debate. It is right that I am in the process going back to the European Court of Human Rights and we will continue to work with the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court and the High Court, because it is important that we understand their rulings and work with them in any way possible to deliver our policy.

Stella Creasy: To hear the Home Secretary talk, one would think that the European Court of Human Rights was not part of this country’s legal processes. The reason for that—it is a very good libertarian reason—is, as one of its founders said, that the European Court was set up so that
“cases of the violations of the rights of our own body of 12 nations might be brought for judgement in the civilised world”.
Wise words about protecting citizens from overbearing Governments who seek to deny their most basic rights. Will she just abandon this expensive mess? We know, as she said, that there will be further legal action and further cost to the public purse here in the UK. Will she also stop the attacks on the lawyers who are just doing their jobs in holding her to the law? Or does she think that Churchill was wrong?

Priti Patel: I refer the hon. Lady to the comments that I have already made in the House. Specifically, I take issue with her saying that I am attacking lawyers, which is simply not what I have been doing this afternoon—[Interruption.] It is a deliberate misrepresentation, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I think that the hon. Lady might want to withdraw her comments.

Lee Anderson: Just when you think this place cannot get any dafter, you turn up and listen to the rubbish that the Opposition are coming out with today. Is the Home Secretary aware of the sniggering, smugness and delight shown on the out-of-touch Opposition Benches about the cancelled Rwanda flight? Will she please advise me? I need some travel advice—I am going away this summer. Is France a safe country to go to?

Priti Patel: For the benefit of the British people, the public, I have in my hand just four pages with a list of Opposition Members making exactly that point with glee—basically wanting the policy to fail, condemning it and saying all sorts of things without coming up with alternative solutions.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about France as a safe country. This is a fundamental principle of working with our colleagues more broadly—[Interruption.] Those on the Opposition Front Bench have already had their chance to speak. These are safe countries and there are people who are effectively picking to come to the UK. That is something we have to stop by going after the people smugglers and breaking up their business model.

Jeremy Corbyn: Instead of attacking lawyers who represent desperate and frightened people and attacking courts who give judgment on the European convention on human rights, why cannot the Home Secretary just say very clearly that her Government support the European convention on human rights as a protection of the rights of everybody among the signatory nations and that this Rwanda policy is not just a shame but an utter disgrace? It is a dereliction of duty and it is treating desperate people trying to find a place of safety in a difficult world like chattels that can be sent away somewhere else. Is the policy not just a disgusting example of what the Government are really about where human rights are concerned?

Priti Patel: With all due respect to the right hon. Gentleman, we disagree on many aspects of things. In fact, we have had previously had debates in the House where we have disagreed on various issues. He is absolutely consistent in his approach. I disagree with what he says about our policy and in light of the fact that we are currently going back to the courts to get their judgments, which is the right thing to do, I am not going to  comment any further on the European Court and its work. I am in the process of getting that judgment and that is the right thing to do.

Henry Smith: This country’s record on human rights is world-leading and this Parliament has passed resolutions in law that say that we must remove people who have entered this country illegally. That has been upheld, as the Home Secretary has said, by our domestic courts, so it is deeply troubling that a supranational court seeks to delay the process. What discussions has she had with the Deputy Prime Minister about a renewed British Bill of Rights?

Priti Patel: My hon. Friend has consistently made some excellent points about the removals policy. It is worth reminding the House that Acts of Parliament passed in 1999, 2002 and 2004 clearly enable the Government of the day to remove individuals with no basis to be in this country through removal flights, for example. By the way, those Acts were passed under a previous Labour Government, while Labour is now completely going against them.
My hon. Friend asks a very important question about discussions with the Deputy Prime Minister on the forthcoming Bill of Rights. I can confirm that those discussions are active and that work is taking place—and rightly so. We will continue to deliver, as this whole Government have been doing, on our manifesto commitments, as that is where this stems from. It is right that we do that. As part of delivering for the British people and delivering on Brexit, we will change our laws so that our Government and our laws are sovereign.

Karen Buck: How does cutting the National Crime Agency by 20% deter people smugglers?

Priti Patel: This is a new line of attack from the Opposition. I am not making cuts to the National Crime Agency—let me be clear about that. I am resourcing it. Labour might have forgotten that we have the Russia-Ukraine crisis under way right now. The work that we have brought forward with the National Crime Agency on the kleptocracy cell, the resources that have gone into enforcing sanctions and working with the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation is all the work of the National Crime Agency, where we have given it resource and empowered it to go after the people who do harm to our country. Yet again, the Labour party has not supported that.

Simon Baynes: My constituents in Clwyd South and people across the UK are generous and welcoming to refugees, particularly those from Ukraine and elsewhere, but they have also voted consistently for controlled immigration and the right to secure borders. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have heard no practical solutions from the Labour party to combat the problems of illegal migration?

Priti Patel: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He knows how much I enjoy visiting his constituency—that part of Wales is beautiful, it really is. I know how strongly his constituents feel about the issue, and rightly  so, because they want to see change. That is what this Government are committed to, and clearly the Opposition are not.

Hywel Williams: Government Ministers, from the Prime Minister down, consistently signal their hostility to the European convention on human rights—this episode is a case in point—but the convention is fundamental to Welsh law, for example in the Rights of Children and Young Persons (Wales) Measure 2011. Does the Secretary of State accept that a move away from the convention would undermine Welsh lawmaking, which the overwhelming majority of Welsh people support?

Priti Patel: I refer the hon. Gentleman to comments that I have already made about the European Court’s ruling.

Paul Bristow: Is this debate not extremely simple? On this side of the House, we believe in saving lives, stopping evil people smugglers and doing something about thousands of undocumented people landing on our shores week in, week out. On that side of the House, they back the ECHR ruling, they do not want to crack down on people smugglers, they support open borders and they have absolutely no plan to deal with this problem.

Priti Patel: I completely agree with my hon. Friend and the conviction with which he has just spoken.

Rachael Maskell: On the Home Secretary’s watch, the number of people coming to our country through very dangerous routes has increased. She talks about trying to address the issues with people smugglers, but by closing off safe routes she is pushing people into the hands of people traffickers, making everybody’s life more unsafe. When will she recognise the failure of her policy?

Priti Patel: I could refer the hon. Lady to my earlier statement, but it is always worth reminding colleagues in the House that for many years now there has been a global migration crisis. That is a fact, and every country around the world is speaking about it, not just in Europe, but over in America—even the American Administration are looking at similar policies. Tackling illegal migration requires new solutions. That is effectively what we are doing, because we know that existing approaches have not worked. It means that we work with all our counterparts, which is the right thing to do; it also means that change is needed. We know that people are dying, and that is what we want to stop.

Gavin Williamson: Will my right hon. Friend update the House as to whether, since the French elections, the French Government have had a more proactive approach to working with the UK Government to tackle the issue at source, at the channel?

Priti Patel: My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. In fact, before the elections, a good deal of work was under way to take UK-French partnership and co-operation to a new level. That work is under way right now; just last Friday, our two teams came together to move it forward under the instruction of the French Government  and, obviously, my instruction as Home Secretary. It looks not just at improved co-operation, but at moving into territory in which the French Government had previously been slightly more hesitant to work with us on more co-operation. A great deal of work is under way—let me give my right hon. Friend that assurance.

Barbara Keeley: Can the Home Secretary confirm that the Home Office itself withdrew people from the flight on Friday and yesterday because it accepted that they were victims of torture or trafficking? She has already been asked that question; she did not answer.

Priti Patel: The hon. Lady will know that individuals are removed from the flight manifest when their representatives make claims. We have to remove them when their representatives make claims, because we then have to look into those claims and investigate them through the Court.

Mark Jenkinson: We have seen the Opposition, charities in receipt of Government funding, a minority of my right hon. Friend’s own civil servants and now European judges intervening to block the will of the British people. To borrow a slogan already used by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), when will we take back control?

Priti Patel: I think it fair to say that my hon. Friend is frustrated by the events that have taken place—understandably so, because so are the British people. That is why I will continue with our collective will and determination for this policy and for bringing in changes. We have just passed the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. There is work that we need to do, and we are going to get on with the job.

Stephen Farry: For the sake of myth-busting, there is no requirement in international law for asylum seekers to claim asylum in the first country. Indeed, there are many legitimate reasons why people might choose to come to the UK.
I am grateful for the check and balance that we have from the European Court. The Home Secretary has avoided giving a clear commitment on the future of the European convention on human rights, so maybe I can ask the question in a different way. Over the past week, in relation to the protocol, Government Ministers have stressed their new-found undying commitment to all aspects of the Good Friday agreement. The convention is hardwired into that agreement. Does the Home Secretary therefore agree that it is untouchable?

Priti Patel: Because of the legal proceedings that are taking place and the fact that I am waiting for the Court judgment, which is the right thing to do, I am not going to pre-empt it with any remarks or comments about the European Court of Human Rights.

Greg Smith: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her statement. She has my full support to carry on with the determination that she has shown throughout. Does she share my fear that this is about saving lives and stopping the people smugglers, but the longer people keep it in the courts and go about  legal acrobatics, the more serious is the risk of smugglers preying on more people and, potentially, more people sadly losing their lives?

Priti Patel: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is why the Department has been working overnight to secure the judgment so that we can give responses. It is right that we do so: there is no point in dragging the processes out, because, quite frankly, people will continue to die and people will continue to be smuggled. That is why we will continue with our policy of removals and deportations to third countries and safe countries. That is the right thing to do, because we have to strain every sinew to break up these smuggling gangs.

Rupa Huq: The Home Secretary claims that this policy will destroy the business model of the evil people traffickers. That sounds good, but when Israel adopted the identical policy, every single deported asylum seeker attempted to escape from Rwanda. Many did so successfully, straight into the arms of those same people smuggling rings. It fed the model rather than smashing it. When will the Home Secretary admit that that worked example of trialling the policy—a policy that has been slammed by royalty, clergy, the lot—shows that it is just immoral, expensive and unworkable?

Priti Patel: With all due respect to the hon. Lady, I disagree profoundly. This is not the same agreement as the country that she mentioned has in place with Rwanda; it is a migration and economic development partnership. We are investing in the people who will be removed to Rwanda; they will not only be housed and taken care of, but have the opportunity to rebuild their lives. That is fundamental to the Government of Rwanda and the resettlement policies that they already have successfully in place. The hon. Lady cannot compare this policy to any previous policy whatever. It is important that we continue with it so that we can not only demonstrate, in quarters, that it will work to break up the people smuggling model, but show that we can provide new opportunities in safe countries around the world.

Jacob Young: My constituents support this policy, this House supports this policy, and polling shows that the country supports this policy. Does last night’s decision not mean that we must now fast-track our plans for a new British Bill of Rights and ensure that this democratically elected House is able to deliver on the will of the British people?

Priti Patel: The voice of Redcar speaks with great conviction and determination, as ever when he makes representations. He will have heard my comments with regard to the British Bill of Rights; that work is under way right now, and it will be for the Deputy Prime Minister to announce in due course.

Alison Thewliss: My constituent Azizullah is among the 80 families in my constituency who have relatives who are still stuck in Afghanistan. He has been in regular contact with me since Afghanistan fell; he sent me a message yesterday to say that the Taliban are abusing his brother, trying to find his father  and threatening their execution. If the Home Secretary were in my constituent’s family’s shoes, would she stay in Afghanistan and wait to be executed? Or does she advise them to try to get to safety in Glasgow any way they can, because there is no safe and legal route for Azizullah’s family and the other 80 in my constituency?

Priti Patel: Of course, there has been a scheme specifically for people from Afghanistan to come over.

Alison Thewliss: Not in my constituency.

Priti Patel: The hon. Lady is very welcome to share details with the Refugees Minister.

Alison Thewliss: I have multiple times, and got no response.

Priti Patel: Then I am happy to get a response for her. If she would send me the details, I will absolutely pick that up.

James Daly: The interim judgment of the Strasbourg Court yesterday did not say that the Government’s policy was unlawful or illegal, and any suggestion of that in this Chamber is at best incorrect and at worst misleading. Does my right hon. Friend find it surprising that she has been criticised for enacting a policy that is a democratic mandate given to our Government by millions of people throughout this country—many millions of them ex-Labour voters who will be aghast at the position that the Opposition outlined today?

Priti Patel: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He is absolutely right, because the British people absolutely voted for change. In constituencies such as his, and those of many other Members such as my hon. Friends the Members for Redcar (Jacob Young) and for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis), the public wanted change. We are committed to delivering that change, and we will continue, undeterred, to deliver on the people’s priorities.

Zarah Sultana: I pay tribute to the campaigners, the activists and the lawyers who stopped the flight last night. [Interruption.] Those on the Government Benches might heckle, but those people stopped this disgrace of a Government from trading for money people who fled war and persecution. That is a policy that should shame us, as the Bishop of Coventry, a proud city of sanctuary, and dozens of religious leaders have said.
Let us get a few things straight here: it is not about stopping people trafficking, it is about whipping up hate, dividing communities and distracting us from the failures of this Government. Because if the Home Secretary really wanted to help refugees, if she had a single ounce of compassion, she would bin this inhumane policy and instead create safer legal routes to help refugees live and breathe all their lives in Britain. Will she do that?

Priti Patel: I hope that the hon. Lady, when she calms down, will withdraw her personal slur against me.

Tom Hunt: I have full confidence in my right hon. Friend. This is going to be attritional, but we will win out in the end. There will be a short-term cost to the scheme, but the hope is that with deterrence,  over time that cost will fall. Does my right hon. Friend agree that actually the status quo will end up costing far more, because it is an escalating, potentially never-ending problem, which could potentially bring our public services to their knees through unprecedented demand?

Priti Patel: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He speaks about the costs of doing nothing, which is something that this Government will not do. It is right that we look at all avenues, all policy and changes to our laws, where necessary, to ensure not just that we do everything not just to deter people smugglers and break up those gangs but that people come to this country through our legal routes. Our points-based immigration system is an illustration of that.
This Government have also put in place safe and legal routes, which quite frankly the Labour party has never supported, and consequently campaign against through its mob rule—protests of the type that we saw at the weekend, which the hon. Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) has been supporting.

Florence Eshalomi: Seeking asylum is a basic human right, and we should be protecting people fleeing war and persecution. I thank the many constituents in Vauxhall who show that compassion and have written to me about this deeply inhumane policy. I have flagged up with the Home Secretary the treatment of LGBT people seeking asylum, and I wrote to her on 21 April seeking assurances that the deal that she mentioned had a legal agreement on that. To date I have not received a reply. Can the Home Secretary now assure us that the deal that she has agreed does have those assurances to protect LGBT people?

Priti Patel: I apologise that the hon. Lady has not had a response, and after this statement I will go and find out what has happened to that. If I recall rightly, the hon. Lady raised this matter on the Floor of the House when we last had this debate, and we discussed human rights, including LGBT rights in Rwanda. If I remember rightly, I think I said back then that Rwanda’s constitution outlaws discrimination. Rwanda does not criminalise or discriminate against sexual orientation in law, and importantly, our policy is cognisant of that and fully compliant with those laws and our own domestic laws.

Alexander Stafford: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that despite this despicable ruling from a foreign European Court of justice, we are committed to relocating illegal immigrants to Rwanda? When can we look forward to wheels down in Kigali for the first flight?

Priti Patel: I note my hon. Friend’s enthusiasm for this Government’s work and policy on removals and deportation. It is an important point because, as I have said a few times during this statement, we are working to receive the judgment from the European Court; it is right that we do that. It is right that we go through all the processes. But our policy is legal, and I can give my hon. Friend and his constituents every assurance that we will continue.

Lilian Greenwood: A few minutes ago, the Home Secretary appeared to confirm that she considers Afghans to be in genuine need. There were reports of Afghans on the planned flight. Are those reports correct?

Priti Patel: I will restate, as I said in my statement, that the individuals who were due to be on that flight had travelled to this country illegally through safe countries where they could have claimed asylum.

Jonathan Gullis: My right hon. Friend will understand and share the frustration of the people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke after judges have meddled with our UK legal system and our UK Parliament, but they will not be shocked at the sneering and snarling from Labour Members, who like to look down upon the people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke for backing Brexit and this Government for taking back control of our borders. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that a British Bill of Rights will indeed help clear the way to ensure that these flights can take off and this policy will flourish?

Priti Patel: My hon. Friend spoke of the sneering from the Opposition—the Front Benchers, in fact; we can hear it—while one of the strongest-working MPs for Stoke-on-Trent spoke. His great constituents have one of their most vocal advocates in this House. He is absolutely right in his comments. We will continue our work.

Christine Jardine: I wonder whether the Home Secretary realises the extent to which her determination to pursue this immoral, expensive and already failing policy is damaging the firm and fair immigration system to which she says she is committed—to the extent that amongst one of the very many complaints and letters that I have received on immigration matters was one from someone who has sponsored a youngster, then in Ethiopia, for 18 years and has been refused a visa to bring him over for a visit this summer, on the grounds that the forms were not filled in correctly and there was a problem with the interview. The interview never took place, and the forms that were incorrectly filled in were filled in by the former Member for Edinburgh West, my predecessor as MP, who is well acquainted with the immigration system. So will the Home Secretary stop this obsession and deal with those issues?

Priti Patel: I have not seen the case that the hon. Lady mentions. She is welcome to bring that to me; I would be happy to look at it. As I have said throughout this statement, we will continue with our policy, and we will continue in our determination to break up the people smuggling gangs and work with our global partners to find solutions.

Neil Coyle: We know that Ministers have form for breaking rules and wasting public funds, but will the Home Secretary stop hiding the figures and tell us how many millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money her Government will squander before the outsourcing of asylum policy, so roundly condemned by our Church of state and our next Head of State, is eventually and inevitably proved unlawful?

Priti Patel: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the comments that I made earlier.

Rosie Winterton: I thank the Home Secretary for her statement.

Bills Presented

Social Security (Additional Payments) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Orders Nos. 50 and 57)
Secretary Thérèse Coffey, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng and David Rutley, presented a Bill to make provision about additional payments to recipients of means-tested benefits, tax credits and disability benefits.
Bill read the first time; to be read a second time tomorrow and to be printed (Bill 13) with explanatory notes (Bill 13-EN).

Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Stuart C McDonald, supported by David Linden, Luke Hall, Alex Davies-Jones, Steve Reed, Caroline Lucas, Ben Lake, Tim Farron, Ms Anum Qaisar, Gavin Newlands, Alison Thewliss and Amy Callaghan, presented a Bill to make provision about leave and pay for employees with responsibility for children receiving neonatal care.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 July, and to be printed (Bill 14).

Protection from Redundancy (Pregnancy and Family Leave) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Dan Jarvis presented a Bill to make provision about protection from redundancy during or after pregnancy or after periods of maternity, adoption or shared parental leave.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 9 September, and to be printed (Bill 15).

Equipment Theft (Prevention) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Greg Smith presented a Bill to make provision to prevent the theft and re-sale of equipment and tools used by tradespeople and agricultural and other businesses; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 September, and to be printed (Bill 16).

Co-operatives, Mutuals and Friendly Societies Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sir Mark Hendrick presented a Bill to make provision about the types of share capital issued by co-operatives; to make provision about the taxation of mutual insurers and friendly societies which issue deferred shares; to permit the capital surplus of co-operatives, mutuals and friendly societies to be non-distributable; to amend the Friendly Societies Act 1992; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 October, and to be printed (Bill 17).

Electricity and Gas Transmission (Compensation) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Dr Liam Fox presented a Bill to establish an independent mechanism to determine claims for compensation in cases where land will be or has been subject to the acquisition of rights or land, through compulsion or by agreement, for the purposes of electricity and gas transmission; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 November, and to be printed (Bill 18).

Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Bob Blackman presented a Bill to make provision about the regulation of supported exempt accommodation; to make provision about local authority oversight of, and enforcement powers relating to, the provision of supported exempt accommodation; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 November, and to be printed (Bill 19).

Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Greg Clark presented a Bill to make provision about causing intentional harassment, alarm or distress to a person in public where the behaviour is done because of that person’s sex; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 9 December, and to be printed (Bill 20).

Employment (Allocation of Tips) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Dean Russell presented a Bill to ensure that tips, gratuities and service charges paid by customers are allocated to workers.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 July, and to be printed (Bill 21).

Employment Relations (Flexible Working) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Yasmin Qureshi presented a Bill to make provision in relation to the right of employees and other workers to request variations to particular terms and conditions of employment, including working hours, times and locations.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 October, and to be printed (Bill 22).

Carer’s Leave Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Wendy Chamberlain presented a Bill to make provision about unpaid leave for employees with caring responsibilities.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 9 September, and to be printed (Bill 23).

Offenders (Day of Release from Detention) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mark Jenkinson presented a Bill to make provision about the days on which offenders are released from detention; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 September, and to be printed (Bill 24).

Terminal Illness (Support and Rights) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Alex Cunningham presented a Bill to require utility companies to provide financial support to customers with a terminal illness; to make provision about the employment rights of people with a terminal illness; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 November, and to be printed (Bill 25).

Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Henry Smith presented a Bill to make provision prohibiting the import of hunting trophies into Great Britain.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 November, and to be printed (Bill 26).

Child Support (Enforcement) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Claire Coutinho presented a Bill to make provision about the enforcement of child support maintenance and other maintenance; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 9 December, and to be printed (Bill 27).

Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Wera Hobhouse presented a Bill to make provision in relation to the duties of employers and the protection of workers under the Equality Act 2010.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 9 September, and to be printed (Bill 28).

Online Sale of Goods (Safety) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Kate Osborne, on behalf of Ian Mearns, presented a Bill to provide for the Secretary of State to make regulations about the safety of goods sold online; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 20 January, and to be printed (Bill 29).

Shark Fins Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Christina Rees presented a Bill to prohibit the import and export of shark fins and to make provision relating to the removal of fins from sharks.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 July, and to be printed (Bill 30).

Dyslexia Screening and Teacher Training Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Matt Hancock, supported by Robert Halfon, Dr Rupa Huq, Sir Iain Duncan Smith, Paul Bristow, Rosie Cooper, Tom Hunt, Henry Smith, Holly Mumby-Croft, Christian Wakeford, Brendan Clarke-Smith and Jim Shannon, presented a Bill to make provision for screening for dyslexia in primary schools; to make provision about teacher training relating to neurodivergent conditions; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 September, and to be printed (Bill 31).

Child Support Collection (Domestic Abuse) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Sally-Ann Hart presented a Bill to make provision enabling the making of arrangements for the collection of child support maintenance in cases involving domestic abuse.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 October, and to be printed (Bill 32).

Powers of Attorney Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Stephen Metcalfe presented a Bill to make provision about lasting powers of attorney; to make provision about proof of instruments creating powers of attorney; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 9 December, and to be printed (Bill 33).

Business of the House (Today)

Ordered,
That, at this day’s sitting, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the motion in the name of Secretary Grant Shapps relating to Rail Strikes not later than three hours after the commencement of proceedings on that motion; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; the business may be proceeded with, though opposed, after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Mark Spencer.)

Rail Strikes

Rosie Winterton: I need to inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected amendment (a) in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. Under the terms of the business motion agreed today, the amendment will be moved formally at the end of the debate.

Grant Shapps: I beg to move,
That this House recognises the vital role of the railways in supporting people and businesses across the UK every day; condemns the decision of the rail unions to hold three days of strikes; believes those strikes will adversely affect students taking examinations, have an unacceptable effect on working people and a negative effect on the economy; and calls on the rail unions to reconsider their strike action and continue discussions with the industry.
The railway is one of the nation’s greatest legacies. The industrial revolution was forged upon it, and for two centuries it has been the means by which we have connected north and south, east and west. It is a proud part of our history, but the truth is that the railways in this country have fallen behind the times. When I became Transport Secretary three years ago, it was clear that our railways were expensive, inefficient, fragmented, unaccountable and desperately in need of modernising and reform. There were delays to upgrades, collapsing franchises and busy lines operating at the very peak of, and sometimes beyond, their capacity, suffering overcrowding and delays. Some working practices had not changed for decades. As a result, we have a railway today that is struggling to keep pace with modern living, particularly in the wake of the pandemic. Our railways need a new direction.
Office workers are working from home more often and the railway has lost around a fifth of its passengers, and also a fifth of its income. The Government kept the railway running when most passengers stayed at home. We kept trains available for key workers and protected the brilliant railway workers who managed the track and ran the trains. So this Government have stepped in. We put our money where our mouth is and we committed £16 billion to support the railways through covid. That is taxpayers’ money, and it is the equivalent of £600 for every household in this country. Put another way, it is the equivalent to £160,000 per rail worker in this country. As a result, the trains continued to operate, the industry survived and not a single railway worker had to be furloughed or lost their job—not one. We stepped up, but the honest truth is that this level of subsidy—which, let us not forget, is not the Government’s money but the taxpayer’s—simply cannot continue forever. If our railways are to thrive, things must change.
As I see it, there are four ways to bring about that change. First, we could continue to attempt to pump billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money into the system in the same unsustainable way we have been doing for the last two years, but that would take money away from the NHS and schools. Secondly, we could ramp up fares, but that would price working people off our railways completely. Thirdly, we could cut services and lines, emulating those sweeping cuts made by Dr Beeching in the 1960s, making it harder for people to access our railways. I do not support any of those options, which leaves us with the fourth option: modernise the railways, making them more productive and getting the industry off taxpayer-funded life support.
Make no mistake, as a Government we profoundly believe in our railways, which is why we have reopened abandoned routes and electrified thousands of miles of lines—not just the 63 miles that Labour managed to electrify over 13 years. It is why we have got behind projects such as High Speed 2, the Elizabeth line and Northern Powerhouse Rail, and rolled out contactless to 900 more stations and digital signalling across the network. And it is why we are transforming the industry through Great British Railways, ending the fragmentation and putting passengers first, but we need the industry to help with that transformation.

Jeremy Corbyn: The Secretary of State rightly says that billions were pumped into the railways during the covid pandemic. That money kept the system going, and a lot of people worked very hard to keep it going. The train operating companies were preserved and supported, and they did very well during that period, as did many others in the private sector. Why is he now punishing the people who kept the railway system working, and who do all the difficult jobs on the railways, with job losses, inadequate pay and a loss of morale? Should he not talk to their representative unions about the real situation on the railways and work with them to ensure we have an effective, efficient and secure rail system for the future?

Grant Shapps: I pay tribute to the workers on the railway who kept things running, with a lot of taxpayers’ cash, during the pandemic. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about that, but he talks about inadequate pay. I remind him and the House that the median salary for a train driver is £59,000, compared with £31,000 for a nurse and £21,000 for a care worker. [Hon. Members: “That’s the train drivers!”] The median salary for the rail sector is £44,000, which is significantly above the median salary in the country. What is more, salaries in the rail sector went up much faster over the last 10 years than in the rest of the country—a 39% increase for train drivers, compared with 7% for police officers and 16% for nurses. It is a good package, and we need to get the railways functioning for everybody in this country.

Stephen Hammond: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that, coming out of the pandemic, the railways need to be modernised. Is it not extraordinary that, just as we are seeing confidence return, it will be destroyed by these strikes? Does he agree that this is exactly the wrong time, for both our economy and our railways, for these strikes to be happening?

Grant Shapps: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. These discussions were under way when, suddenly, the union decided to ballot its members, incorrectly telling them that a strike would get them off the pay freeze. Nearly every part of the public sector experienced a pay freeze and, in any case, it is coming to an end. These pointless, counterproductive strikes should never have been called, and the Labour party should recognise that fact.

Lilian Greenwood: Precisely because of the potential disruption, and instead of calling today’s debate, should the Secretary of State not be taking action to try to resolve these disputes? When did he last meet industry leaders and trade unions to try to get that resolution? Has he had a discussion about bringing in ACAS to resolve this dispute? If he has not, will he commit to doing so now?

Grant Shapps: I hear what the hon. Lady says. The Leader of the Opposition claims to care deeply about this issue, yet he is not with us today. [Hon. Members: “Where is the Prime Minister?”] The Prime Minister has already said exactly where he is on this issue, but the Leader of the Opposition cannot find his way to the Front Bench when it really matters and when it comes to standing up for working people, Where is he?
The leader of the RMT, Mick Lynch, said only last month, “I do not negotiate with a Tory Government.” He does not want to meet us. That is the reality of the situation.

Felicity Buchan: There have been 52 days of tube strikes since Sadiq Khan was elected Mayor of London, even though he was elected on a promise of zero strikes. He has also said:
“Strikes are ultimately a sign of failure.”
Does the Secretary of State agree that Londoners deserve better? Does he agree that any Opposition Member who backs these strikes is punishing my constituents and my constituents’ businesses? [Interruption.]

Rosie Winterton: Order. It will become impossible to hear what people are saying if this becomes a shouting match. Perhaps we could take the temperature down a little.

Grant Shapps: My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan) is absolutely right. We provided £5 billion to Transport for London, and we have not seen the required level of savings. TfL is behind on providing those savings. There has to be a fair balance between taxpayers nationwide and what happens in London, but that has not stopped the RMT striking in London, which will stop Londoners getting to work. We are locked into an atmosphere in which, before the RMT even talks, negotiates or listens to an offer, it goes for a strike ballot.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Grant Shapps: I will make a little progress before taking further interventions.
We need the industry to help with this transformation. We cannot ignore working practices that are stuck 50 or even 100 years in the past. A modern railway needs to run seven days a week. Right now, too many operators are left short at the weekend, which leaves passengers  with substandard services. We cannot continue increasing pay on the railways far above the pay for nurses, teachers, police officers and care workers. We cannot continue with the absurd situation where workers can restart their 20-minute break if a manager dares to say “Good morning” at minute 19. That is insane. We have to change the system, as we cannot continue to fund such practices from the public purse.

Chris Loder: My right hon. Friend is making a very profound speech—[Interruption.] The Opposition might not like it, but he is.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reason there is no chorus from the Opposition condemning these strikes is that the RMT is pouring hundreds of thousands of pounds, if not millions, into the Labour party? [Interruption.]

Rosie Winterton: Order. We need to be very careful not to descend into insults.

Grant Shapps: I think my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) is a former union member, possibly even a former RMT member. He worked on the railways, so he knows what he is talking about. Madam Deputy Speaker has asked us to stick to the facts, so let us do that.
My hon. Friend is right to say that the RMT has donated almost £250,000 to the Labour party and constituency Labour parties over the last 10 years. For the fullness of the record, it is also worth pointing out that the Electoral Commission registered more than £100 million of trade union donations to the Labour party and CLPs over the same 10-year period. Those are the facts of the matter.

Chris Stephens: My understanding is that the RMT is not affiliated with the Labour party, and I say that as an SNP Member.
We have the strictest trade union laws in Europe, and the thresholds have been easily surpassed in this particular ballot. What discussions is the Secretary of State facilitating between the RMT and the employers to resolve this issue?

Grant Shapps: First, it will interest the House to know—this is in direct answer to the question—that the negotiations and talks are going on almost every day.

Louise Haigh: Without you!

Grant Shapps: This is Labour’s level of understanding. There is a Network Rail company that runs the infrastructure—[Interruption.]

Rosie Winterton: Order. We need to hear the answer.

Grant Shapps: Network Rail runs the infrastructure and 14 train operating companies are the employers, and they are meeting on a daily basis. But that has not prevented the unions from striking. That has not stopped the leader of the RMT saying that he would refuse to meet us. So we cannot have this every way.

Alec Shelbrooke: As my right hon. Friend said, billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money was put into the railway industry and it kept almost everybody in employment. In my constituency, many businesses survive by servicing the footfall through the stations. Because these businesses employed staff and they were people’s own companies, they were not capable of getting the loans and grants that were in place, because they had to keep the company alive and keep the people they employed. So what does he think their reaction is to hearing about more public money spent on the railways, on top of the £16 billion, when they are struggling to get their businesses back on track? This strike will make it even worse for them.

Grant Shapps: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to point that out. Just as the railways and the country are recovering—after two years of being locked down, with many of our constituents having lost their jobs and businesses while coronavirus was going on, without the kind of £16 billion of protection that the railways have enjoyed—now is not the time to strike.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Grant Shapps: I will make a little more progress and then I will take a couple more interventions.
That brings me to the motion. Instead of having proper negotiations with the train companies and Network Rail, the RMT and other railway unions have leapt straight for the lever marked “strikes and mass disruption”. Just as the industry is beginning to recover from the pandemic and people were starting to be able to travel once again, the last thing we need now is to alienate passengers who are returning to the network. The unions do not seem to recognise that many commuters who before covid had no option but to take the train now have the option not to travel at all. Say goodbye to them and we really will be in danger of losing the jobs of thousands of rail workers.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Grant Shapps: Again, I will make a little progress. Of course for others who have no option but to travel, the strikes will mean huge disruption. They will mean thousands of people not being able to get to work, some of whom might lose their jobs and be added to the list of those who did during covid. These strikes will mean families losing money; the economy being dented by tens of millions of pounds every day, as businesses lose customers; children unable to get to their exams; and patients unable to get to hospitals.

John Martin McDonnell: The question was raised as to whether the Secretary of State or the Government had met the RMT, and he basically said, “Let the negotiations go”. I cannot recall the exact phrase he used. Mick Lynch, the general secretary of the RMT, has written to him today, “I am writing to seek an urgent meeting with the Government, without any preconditions, to discuss the national rail disputes prior to the planned strike action next week, and I would be grateful if this could be arranged without delay.” Will he respond—[Interruption.] We are trying to resolve this matter. Will he respond immediately to Mick Lynch, positively, that he will meet the union now?

Grant Shapps: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I know that it is probably on his record, but for the clarity of this debate let me note that he has £25,000 from the RMT. I say that merely in order to have this conversation with all that information being before the public. If this is a change of heart from Mick Lynch, I welcome it. As I said, just a month ago he said that he would not meet “a Tory Government”. Ministers have and do have meetings with him, but these negotiations are a matter between the employer and the union. The employer is meeting the union every single day, and that is the best way to get this resolved.

Jacob Young: Before the previous intervention, my right hon. Friend was touching on the fact that many workers will not be able to get to work because of these strikes. Does he recognise that someone on the minimum wage will lose £160 over the course of these three days of strikes? Should that not be the cause for the Labour party to condemn the strikes today?

Grant Shapps: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is inexplicable how those in the party who style themselves as the workers’ party do not seem to care about the fact that anyone who is trying to get anywhere will lose pay. It is not just about them; it is about people trying to get to the 17 public examinations that will be disrupted. Kids doing A-levels and GCSEs will not be able to get to them. People will not be able to get to their hospital appointments. This is a reckless, unnecessary strike and it should be called off right now.

Maria Miller: I thank my right hon. Friend for the excellent speech he is making. He talked about the people who are going to be affected by this strike, and in my constituency that will be contract workers who cannot work at home and young people who are having to use the trains to get to college to take their A-levels. Is it not irresponsible of the unions to be timing strikes in the middle of A-level exams, when so many of our young people rely on trains to get to college?

Grant Shapps: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Thousands of children are taking those 17 public exams, including my daughter, whose transport to get to the exams will be complicated by this strike. It is surprising that there seems, from the noises from Members opposite, to be so little care and compassion about this issue. It is absolutely extraordinary. [Interruption.] This red herring that the unions have not had anybody to talk to is complete and utter nonsense. They are talking to the employers and they did not care about those discussions—they just called the strikes instead. That is what they did.
This is why the Government’s motion calls on the House to condemn the unions for their unnecessary actions. It is why we demand that they get to the negotiating table and work in good faith with the train companies to find the solutions that secure the future of the industry. I hope that these common-sense principles will prevail today. I hope that everybody can agree with that, but I am not sure, given the performance so far, that we are going to see it.

James Sunderland: Given that the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, appears not to have publicly condemned these strikes, does my right hon.  Friend appreciate that Sadiq Khan might be encouraged to waive the ULEZ—ultra low emissions zone—and the congestion charge for motorists who are now having to come into London? Many of my constituents rely on the trains, and this is just another cost on hard-working families.

Grant Shapps: Every possible alleviation that can be made should be made. I have not seen that particular proposal, but obviously the Mayor will need to look at it. It is extraordinary that this whole House would not want to stand up for hard-working people everywhere and would not want to ensure that people are able to get to their work and job, and that their livelihoods are not damaged.

Dean Russell: Schoolchildren taking their GCSEs and A-levels have been mentioned. For the past two years, children have had to go through unprecedented times. They are in the process of going through exams that have been more stressful than those for any other generation, because of the pandemic. It is absolutely cruel that everybody in this House is not condemning the timing of these strikes and the strikes happening, because those poor children have gone through enough in the past two years and now they are having to suffer in the last weeks of their GCSEs.

Grant Shapps: My hon. Friend has nailed it. It is completely unfair, it is totally the wrong timing. It should not be happening and the whole House would appreciate Labour Members saying more about it, but they cannot say more about it, because they are divided on the subject. The shadow Levelling Up Secretary says that Labour stands united with those who bring the chaos upon our communities. The shadow Health Secretary, supposedly a rising star, although he is not on the Front Bench today because he does not want to be associated with this, even goes so far as to say that if he was given a chance, he would join the strikes. The shadow Transport Secretary, styling herself today as the shadow Secretary of State for strikes, refuses to condemn the RMT’s plan, which is going to cripple our railways.
What has happened to the Leader of the Opposition? He is not here. What is he saying about this? The Prime Minister has set out his position very clearly; I have not heard the Leader of the Opposition set out his position yet. I do not know whether anyone else has spotted him. He is not here today. Presumably, he has been standing up to his shadow Cabinet and defending the people whose lives will be disrupted by the strike. That is where one would expect him to be, but no. He has been playing a game of real-life Twister—his position hopelessly contorted, with one foot in the RMT camp and the other goodness knows where, stretching credibility. Perhaps it is a position that he thinks will appear boring to the shadow Cabinet. In fact, what he is doing is stretching the patience of the British public by not saying where he stands.

Marsha de Cordova: I have been trying persistently to get the Secretary of State’s attention so that he would give way, but he wants to play politics throughout. He talks about wanting to protect hard-working people like those in London, so why will he not commit to meeting the Mayor of London to get a  proper sustainable funding plan for Transport for London so that people can use the transport network and get to work?

Grant Shapps: I am pleased that I have now taken the hon. Lady’s intervention. This is a debate about the national strikes, rather than the future funding of TfL, but since she asks, we have already spent £5 billion supporting TfL. If we had done what the Mayor had asked me to do two years ago, which was to come up with a long-term settlement then, he would have been out of money a long time ago. He should be pleased we did not settle for that.
As I say, this debate is about the strikes that will take place next week. Labour Members should get behind the rest of the country and convince their union friends, who I know give them millions of pounds, that the strike is not in the interests of the British public. Although the Labour party is bankrolled by the unions, we want it to stand up to the union barons, rather than bringing the railways to their knees. The Labour leader might claim to be different, but if you scratch the surface, it is the same old Labour.
Today, the Labour party needs to join the Government and vote for the motion. It needs to put people above its party coffers. It needs to vote to condemn the unions for their irresponsible actions. It needs to stand with hard-working people everywhere, who just want to get on with their lives after two years of considerable disruption.

James Daly: Thousands upon thousands of self-employed people throughout the country will not be able to earn a penny over the period of the strike. It will cripple the economy and the pockets of our constituents throughout the country. Will my right hon. Friend say how much the general secretary of the RMT will lose of his £124,000 in pay and benefits for crippling the economy of this country?

Grant Shapps: My hon. Friend is right to point that out. If I am honest, I am more worried about the rail card that the general secretary gets with his job than about his salary, because he will not be able to use it during the strike. I imagine that will be a problem for him.

Chris Clarkson: Prior to coming here, I was a rail commuter. I stood on platform 14 of Manchester Piccadilly every day, Monday to Friday. That is why I am so frustrated that our Mayor has said absolutely nothing about the strikes and that a fellow Greater Manchester MP is enthusiastically backing them. Has my right hon. Friend consulted any of the Labour of MPs who have taken donations from the RMT about whether they will donate to their constituents on low incomes who will not be able to afford to get to work?

Grant Shapps: My rail commuting friend makes an excellent point. Every person in this country will want to know and understand how MPs have voted in this place tonight. It matters to them and their families, and it matters for their jobs.

Wera Hobhouse: Is it not the reality that the person who most wants this strike to go ahead is the Prime Minister?

Grant Shapps: No.
The choice is clear: we can stick with the same old failed model, which makes the railways uncompetitive and jeopardises thousands of jobs as people abandon the rail network, perhaps forever, or we can come together to overhaul our railway industry, build a service that people want to use and give the railways a bright future. It is time for the unions to call off these absurd strikes. Strikes should be the last resort, not the first resort. If the unions will not stop, we as Members of Parliament, whose constituents rely on the railways for their work, to see their families, to get on and to use public services, must speak with one voice. People throughout the land will look to this House today to see how their Members of Parliament vote.

Rachael Maskell: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. It is unfortunate that he has misjudged the tone of this dispute. We are talking about—[Interruption.] Shh. We are talking about the livelihoods of public servants and about their job security. If he was serious about resolving this dispute, not only would he insist on coming to the table; he would be open to listening to what the unions have to say. Why won’t he?

Grant Shapps: I would welcome guidance on a very serious point, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thought that Members had to point to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests when they speak in this House. I believe that the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) has received a £3,000 donation from the RMT. Today’s vote is specifically about the RMT and its strike, so I would welcome any guidance on that matter.
I do not agree with the hon. Lady about the tone of all this. It is incredibly important that people are getting around the table and talking. Talks have been going on. Unfortunately, even though talks were going on, the unions sold a strike to their members on false pretences: on the basis that there would be no pay rise, when in fact there was always going to be a pay rise because the public pay freeze had come to an end.
I think that now is the time for this House to come together to show that we support hard-working commuters, key workers, the public and the pupils we have spoken about who are taking their A-levels and GCSEs, each of whom will be unable to go about their business. Or will Labour Members vote with their union baron friends, as we were just hearing, in favour of these reckless, unnecessary, self-defeating, premature strikes? Tonight, the voting record of each and every one of us will be on display. The record will show that those on the Government Benches stood united in favour of the people we represent. The question is, where do that lot stand? I commend the motion to the House.

Rosie Winterton: Before I call the shadow Secretary of State, I need to say that there is likely to be a time limit for Back Benchers. It will start at five minutes, but it may well be taken down further.

Louise Haigh: No one in the country wants these strikes to go ahead. As we have heard, they would be a disaster for workers, passengers,  the economy and the rail industry. The good news is that at this stage, they are not inevitable and the dispute can still be resolved. The bad news is that it requires Ministers to step up and show leadership to get the employers and the unions around the table to address the real issues on pay and cuts to safety and maintenance staff that are behind the dispute. Rather than demonstrating any responsibility, the only action the Government have taken so far is to send a petition to the official Opposition. The entire country is about to be ground to a halt, and instead of intervening to try to prevent it, the Government are more concerned with a data capture exercise.
Today, on the eve of the biggest rail dispute in a generation taking place on the Secretary of State’s watch, it is right to say, is it not, that neither he nor his Ministers have held any talks with the unions and the industry to try to settle this dispute?

Paula Barker: My hon. Friend is making extremely good points—[Interruption.] Thank you. Does she agree that it is utterly absurd that the Government of this country are petitioning the Opposition Benches to try to resolve these strikes when they would do better getting round the table to resolve the issues themselves?

Rosie Winterton: Order. To Members who are just shouting out while the hon. Lady is trying to make an intervention, I say, please control yourselves. I couldn’t quite hear the hon. Lady because of the noise.

Paula Barker: Shall I repeat it?

Rosie Winterton: Why don’t you?

Paula Barker: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is utterly absurd that the governing party of the United Kingdom is so incapable of running this country that it has resorted to petitioning Her Majesty’s Opposition to resolve this dispute? Would not its time be better spent doing its job and trying to get round the table to resolve this dispute?

Louise Haigh: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. I am afraid that it is pathetic that the Government have chosen to petition the Official Opposition when in fact the Transport Secretary has not held a single meeting with either the unions or the industry for over two months to prevent this action from going ahead.

Jacob Young: Why will the hon. Lady not condemn the strikes?

Louise Haigh: What difference does the hon. Gentleman think it would make if I condemned the strike? The only person who has it within their power to resolve this dispute is sitting opposite me now. The clue is in the name. My title—

Rosie Winterton: Order. Just stop shouting. I want to hear what the shadow Secretary of State has to say.

Louise Haigh: My title, Madam Deputy Speaker, is the shadow Transport Secretary. If the Transport Secretary would like to put his hands up, admit failure and step  aside, I would be happy to take control. The fact is that the train operating companies have not been given their negotiating mandate by their Department for Transport, so they cannot even negotiate directly with the trade unions now. The Secretary of State has responsibility and he is completely failing to show it.

Anna McMorrin: In Labour-run Wales, train staff are not on strike. That is because, in Wales, we work in social partnership instead of creating and fabricating misinformation and not engaging with England.

Louise Haigh: My hon. Friend is right. Where we have leaders in charge who are showing responsibility and stepping in and negotiating with the unions and employers, we have resolved disputes. This Transport Secretary has no time to resolve the biggest dispute in modern history. What has he found time to do instead? Looking back at his Tik Tok over the past couple of months, I can see that he had plenty of time for videos, for sit-on lawnmowers, for Spaghetti Junction, and for impersonating Jeremy Clarkson. He spent a collective total of three-and-a-half hours on the media covering the back of his weakened, discredited, law-breaking Prime Minister. He has also found time to grandstand over this pathetic motion in front of the House today, but he has spent not one single second in talks to resolve these disputes. Frankly, it is unbelievable.
But whether it is the chaos at the airports, with security queues snaking out the door, and thousands of families missing out on their hard-earned holidays, or the looming rail strike, set to be the biggest since 1989—when, coincidentally, the Tories were also in Government—the response from the Transport Secretary is the same: to cast around for someone else, anyone else, to blame. It is nothing short of a dereliction of duty and an insults to the hundreds of thousands of passengers who depend on this being resolved.
The truth may actually be even worse than our usual missing-in-action Transport Secretary. It is impossible to escape the conclusion that Ministers would prefer to provoke this dispute and play political games rather than resolve it.

Barbara Keeley: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the missing-in-action Transport Secretary. A couple of Conservative Members raised the issue of schoolchildren taking their GCSEs and A-levels, and that is a concern to everybody. Ministers will not be forgiven for failing to prepare for this strike. [Interruption.] I tried to ask the Secretary of State this question. What contingency plans has he made and has he called Cobra? What we want to see now is not more Tik Tok from the Secretary of State, but more common sense, more planning and more contingency.

Louise Haigh: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Was it not telling that there was not a single mention of one constructive step that the Transport Secretary has attempted to take to bring this strike to a resolution? When is he planning on meeting with the industry and the unions before the first day of planned strike action? What safety assessment has he made of the cuts to Network Rail jobs in order to reassure workers and passengers that their safety will not be compromised?  Has Cobra met to plan contingencies for the impact on the movement of freight, on schoolchildren missing their exams and on the wider economy? Finally, and most importantly, will he immediately call in ACAS to bring an urgent end to the dispute? That is why we have tabled our amendment to the Government’s motion in front of us today. It is to urge them to convene talks with the industry and the unions and take concrete steps to resolve these strikes.
Labour has been clear, and I will be clear again: we do not want these strikes to take place. If we were in government, we would be around the table in talks to resolve this. Members do not have to take my word for it: in Labour-run Wales, a strike by train staff has been avoided. Employers, unions and the Government have come together to manage change and avoid the disruptive action that this Government are about to oversee.

Chris Loder: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I say to the hon. Lady, with the greatest respect—

Rosie Winterton: Sit down! No! The hon. Gentleman does not address the shadow Secretary of State. Thank you.

Louise Haigh: That is what any responsible Government would be doing right now.

Mike Amesbury: It seems that we have a Tory Secretary of State for strikes—a Secretary of State giving the green light to strikes. There is an offer on the table from the General Secretary of the RMT. The shadow Secretary of State has clearly referred to ACAS. Does she agree that this is about talk, talk and about negotiation? This is about all those parties—the employers and the trade unions—meeting together. Should the Secretary of State not be taking up that offer from the RMT Union?

Louise Haigh: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Secretary of State could call in ACAS this afternoon in order to take this dispute forward, but, instead, despite repeated promises made to the public, this Government have slashed 19,000 rail services, hiked up rail fares, and presided over near-record delays. The insane system that they have created means that private operators, handed millions of pounds for failing services, will be protected throughout the strike. Those operators have no incentive to settle this dispute. They will carry on collecting their fee and the taxpayer will foot the bill. That is the reality of the Conservative mismanagement of our railways.
Finally, let me say this loud and clear: the tens of thousands of workers who keep our railways running are not the enemy. In 2020, the Secretary of State called them “true heroes”. They kept our country served and stocked during the pandemic. They are cleaners, technicians and apprentices—the very same people to whom the Prime Minister promised a “high-wage economy” before presiding over the biggest fall in wages in a decade. Just six weeks ago, the Transport Secretary and his colleagues confected outrage about the illegal decision to replace 800 P&O workers with agency staff. He even called on the public to boycott P&O, but in reality he is acting directly from P&O’s playbook. The only difference is that he wants to make it legal.
Today, the Government have shown their true colours: they want to gut the rights of British workers. How do they think scandals such as P&O can be avoided or even properly punished if they are going to take the axe to the limited protections that workers currently enjoy? Labour will always fight for fair pay and a decent wage for working people. However, rather than do their job, desperate Tory Ministers are spoiling for a fight to distract from their chaotic, discredited and aimless Government.

Chris Clarkson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Rosie Winterton: I hope this is a serious point of order and not just an attempt to disrupt the debate. I want to be absolutely clear that it is very discourteous to the House to keep interrupting with points of order when colleagues will have the chance to contribute separately. I look forward to this being a proper point of order.

Chris Clarkson: Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a proper point of order, because we value a proper debate in this House. Is it a proper debate if the hon. Member at the Opposition Dispatch Box refuses to take interventions from this side?

Rosie Winterton: Honestly, the hon. Gentleman should know very well, because he will have seen it on both sides of the House, that it is up to an individual right hon. or hon. Member whether they take interventions. He knows that very well. Quite honestly, that was a bit spurious. Let us have just a bit of courtesy to each other in this debate—[Interruption.] Don’t question me. I call Louise Haigh.

Louise Haigh: The public will not forgive the Government next week, when children are missing their school exams, patients are missing their health appointments in the face of the biggest backlog in NHS history and low-paid workers cannot get to work, if the Government have not lifted a finger to resolve any of it. What the public need right now is a firefighter; instead they have a bunch of arsonists. If the Secretary of State is remotely interested in doing his job, he will accept our amendment, drop the toxic political point-scoring, and get round the table to prevent these strikes.

Rosie Winterton: I call the Chair of the Transport Committee, Huw Merriman.

Huw Merriman: Whenever I rise to speak, I always take the energy out of the room, which in this instance may be no bad thing if we are to get ourselves a settlement here.
These strikes are such a huge shame to this industry. We have a situation where diesel is rising to £2 per litre, we have challenges at the airport and we are going into the summer months looking at the leisure market. This should be the time when we can grow our rail market back to the levels it was pre pandemic. Let us remember that rail services used to pay for themselves—indeed,  back in 2018 they paid £200 million to the Exchequer—but we have seen that situation reversed to a £16 billion taxpayer subsidy.
In my years both on the Select Committee and chairing it, I have always tried to engage positively with the trade union movement. I certainly did when it came to airlines’ cutting staff; I remember being on the picket line with hon. Members from Brighton with Unite staff. Indeed, the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) said that someone had asked, “Which one of you is the Tory?”, which one would not normally expect with him.
I have always spoken out where I have felt that the workforce have been treated badly, but I must say that rail workers have always enjoyed positive pay. I fished out a release from the RMT back in 2019 where it congratulated itself on an inflation-busting pay rise for its members. Rail workers earn 70% extra on a median basis compared with the typical UK worker. This is a well-paid workforce, and I will always continue to ensure that they are supported and well paid, but they must bear in mind that we need reform on the railway if we are to make it better and safer for passenger and worker.

Stephanie Peacock: The Chair of the Select Committee has talked about engaging with the trade unions, which I know he has done positively. Does he agree that his Government should get around the table, facilitate those negotiations and talks and take some responsibility?

Huw Merriman: I will always support engagement positively. The trouble is that in order to do that, we need industrial action to come off the table, since it is only next week. Of course unions will not do that, because that is their leverage, but it is foolish for a negotiator on one side to allow those talks to commence without any certainty that there will be some give on the other side. I used to work as a negotiator, so I understand how these things operate: there has to be give and take from both sides. It is not good enough to write a letter saying, “We will talk immediately,” without reducing demands or saying, “The strikes will be postponed so that we can have those talks.” I do not believe that letter says that, but that is what is required.
It was right during the pandemic that we threw everything at ensuring the railways operated. It was right then, but if it was right then to get essential key workers to their places and people to their hospital appointments, then it is absolutely right now, given that we have given £16 billion of taxpayers’ money—not our money, but taxpayers’ money—into supporting the rail system.
I want to talk about safety, because that is bound to come up. When we ask for reform, which of course will produce savings, we are also talking about innovation and technology that will make the railways safer. I will give an example: there is no need for railway workers to be walking on the tracks to undertake certain jobs when technology—drones and cameras under the bottom of train carriages—can do those jobs instead.
I have a report in this folder from the Rail Accident Investigation Branch looking at a tragedy in Surbiton, telling Network Rail that it needs to get more of its workforce off the tracks and make more use of technology and innovation. This is not just about safety, efficiency,  cost-cutting or manpower-cutting, particularly when we are delivering HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail and Crossrail has just been delivered. There are jobs in the rail industry, but they must be modernised to make them safer for all.

Tahir Ali: I come from a maintenance background and I know how maintenance works. When you get rid of engineers, you cannot replace them. You cannot decide one day that you have got rid of 500 too many maintenance staff or engineers; they are specialist workers who need training over the years. Once they have gone, so has the knowledge.
Drones and technology can replace people to some extent, but not to the extent being proposed. How do you suggest that the jobs that will be affected will not put at risk the safety of the people using the trains and lead to future crashes that would cost the lives of transport people?

Rosie Winterton: Order. Interventions do need to be short and not directly addressing the hon. Member.

Huw Merriman: Following your lead, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will just give one example: cracks to rail. Technology now allows a sensor camera underneath a train to click 70,000 images per minute. That replaces an individual’s eyes or teams of men tracking. I would maintain that that not only makes it more likely that the cracks will be spotted, but means it is not necessary to put people on the asset, which is dangerous to them and means closures that we do not need when the train is operating.
This is not rocket science related specifically to the rail industry. Every single industry innovates, moves forward and develops. This Chamber may seem a funny place to stand and say that working practices are rooted in the past, when this very place is all about that, but the way we speak and operate here does not necessarily impact the lives or enhance the passenger services that I believe we could do in rail, if the industry as a whole, working with the workforce, developed and innovated in the manner I advocate.
I come back to the point about collaboratively working together. It is essential. I saw to my cost, as an MP in the region that includes Southern Railway, damaging strikes that went on for far too long. Passengers could not get to work; it had a huge impact on the economic community and on the workforce. The crazy thing about that strike, which was about who opened the doors, the guard or the driver, was that it ended up being settled with a pay rise for drivers. Ironically, that was on the ASLEF side; the RMT side, which started this, did not get that pay rise. The ASLEF drivers got a pay rise of 25% over three years.
I would say to those on the Front Bench: “Of course take leadership, make that noise, but you have to ensure that you see this through.” There is nothing worse than starting this action, causing industrial relations to decline, and then finding out that we withdraw; it would be better not to do it at all.

Lilian Greenwood: rose—

Huw Merriman: I will give way one more time because the hon. Lady is my predecessor on the Select Committee.

Lilian Greenwood: The hon. Gentleman knows that I have a great deal of respect for the work that he does, but what conclusion does he draw from the fact that there are no rail strikes going ahead next week in Wales, where there has been an active, responsible Government seeking to bring people together and resolve issues? Is it not precisely the point that active government can get the two sides together and attempt to resolve the issues?

Huw Merriman: I certainly take that point, but just I heard from another member of our Committee that Network Rail is still striking in Wales, and when it is about Network Rail members of the RMT, that tends to shut the railway down. In my example of when the RMT was striking in the Southern region, that did not shut the system down because that only happened when ASLEF drivers were involved. We will both check the record on that, no doubt, but that is how I am informed.

Greg Knight: rose—

Huw Merriman: I will take one last intervention and that is it.

Rosie Winterton: Order. I should perhaps explain that if two interventions are taken there is extra time, but after that there is not, so I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has run out of time.

Jacob Young: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I took your advice to the previous Member who raised a point of order not to do it in the thrust of the debate, which is I waited until this moment, but I thought it right to put it on the record that I was not aware that the shadow Secretary of State declared in her remarks that she had received over £30,000 in donations from the unions. Given that Members’ entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests are under particular scrutiny at this time, it is right that in a debate about unions and strikes, all Members are clear about their entries in the register.

Louise Haigh: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have never received a penny from the RMT.

Jacob Young: This is about unions and strikes, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the hon. Lady has received £30,000 from the unions since 2015. That is a matter of fact according to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Rosie Winterton: This is rather descending into how I hoped a debate on a very serious issue might not be governed. The hon. Gentleman has said one thing and the shadow Secretary of State has said another, but I reiterate that the responsibility for registration lies with individual Members and not the Chair, and I think we need to adopt that practice, frankly. If there are any complaints to be made, they should be submitted to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. That is the appropriate course of action. Perhaps we should now move on with the debate and address the issues in front of us in some detail, as I am sure the SNP spokesman, Gavin Newlands, will do.

Gavin Newlands: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think the rather febrile atmosphere on the Conservative Benches rather gives the lie to the Conservative approach to workers’ rights in this place.
I congratulate the Secretary of State on his motion, because after his part-nationalisation of railways during the pandemic and his—on the face of it, at least—very un-Conservative response to the actions of P&O, his ideological re-education has been a roaring success in the form of this utterly regressive motion before us today. Let us face it, no Tory Cabinet Minister has ever seen their stock drop through a bit of good old-fashioned union bashing, and that is exactly what this motion is. [Interruption.] I am happy to give way to the Secretary of State if he wants. His motion talks about the “effect on the economy” that next week’s proposed action will have. I find that incredible when his Government have set the British economy ablaze in the name of “taking back control”. Is that control only to be taken back when it has a wee Union Jack on it as opposed to a union banner?
Some Conservative Members and their comrades in Holyrood moved at lightning speed recently in their attempt to blame the Scottish Government for the issues experienced with the newly nationalised ScotRail regarding rest day working, but they have gone a little more quiet after ScotRail management and ASLEF worked through the issues and came to a negotiated outcome that the union leadership have today recommended to their members.

Chris Loder: rose—

Gavin Newlands: I had a feeling that my colleague on the Transport Committee would intervene at this point.

Chris Loder: Does the hon. Gentleman agree, though, that the SNP Scottish Government have absolutely failed in managing the situation in Scotland? Only a week ago, the SNP said that it would not buckle to the unions, but it has done. It has given a 5% pay rise, plus profit share, with no improvements at all, and the strike coming from the RMT will still affect Scotland in the coming days. So does he agree that perhaps the SNP Scottish Government are not quite as brilliant as he makes out?

Gavin Newlands: It will come as no surprise to anyone that I completely disagree. We are unlikely to have strikes in Scotland, other than the Network Rail issues, which are entirely reserved to this place. I am not entirely sure why the hon. Gentleman does not want people to get a fair wage in this day and age when inflation, partly caused by his own Government, might run at near 10% by the end of this year. I think that 5% is a good deal for the workers and a good deal for ScotRail.

Angus MacNeil: What I am discerning from this debate is that where you have Tories you get strikes. That is the lesson from Scotland and Wales. It is always instructive to find out from the Tories about market forces. Market forces apply only when it comes to bankers; workers should just suck up the cost of living crisis and not use their  force in the market to get themselves a decent wage. If this was about bankers’ bonuses, there would be no problems for Conservative Members whatsoever. They should be doing something about the inequality that is driving this. We saw yesterday from the SNP’s prospectus for independence that the UK has the greatest inequality of any of the north-western European countries. That lies at the doorstep of the Tory Government, and Transport Ministers and other Ministers do nothing about it.

Gavin Newlands: I could not agree more. I knew my hon. Friend would manage to shoehorn yesterday’s statements on independence into this debate on rail strikes, and I wholeheartedly agree.
I was talking about the difference in approach between the Tories in Scotland on the ScotRail issue as compared with the current issue. The Scottish Conservatives’ Twitter account said that the SNP Government
“must sort this mess out and address the travel misery facing commuters.”
Graham Simpson called for the Scottish Government to get involved and get round the table. Graham Simpson is a Scottish Conservative transport spokesperson in Holyrood. When he was on “Good Morning Scotland” on 20 May, he was asked seven times how he would resolve the rail dispute and he could not answer on any of those seven occasions. That is the difference in approach we get from the Conservatives in Scotland and the Scottish Conservatives in this place. It would be nice to think that the same energy and vim would be directed towards the Secretary of State and his Ministers for their role in the UK-wide dispute next week, but I somehow think that their social media output will instead absolve the Government of any blame, after throwing the kitchen sink at a Scottish Government only weeks after nationalisation.
Perhaps there is something to be said for real public control of our railways, because under the DFT’s fragmented and privatised system, next week will be catastrophic for our rail network. It would be churlish to point out, but I will anyway, that for years the Scottish Government have called for Network Rail to be devolved to Holyrood and come under the auspices of the Scottish Parliament so as to operate a fully integrated railway bringing together track and services. Indeed, former Rail Minister Tom Harris, now an HS2 Ltd board member, advised the Williams review that Network Rail should be devolved when he was a member of the expert challenge panel, but, as per, the Scottish Government, and the rail sector in Scotland, were ignored. Perhaps if that were the case, and given the likely resolution of the ScotRail dispute, we would have services operating next week in Scotland instead of an almost complete cessation of any rail operations across the country for a week.
At least ScotRail tried to give some certainty to passengers, despite the disruption to services, by publishing an emergency timetable outlining which services were running. As of today, we are promised an emergency timetable on Friday for the disruption starting next Tuesday, and that simply is not enough time for people to plan whatever trips they might have to take. This industrial action has been known about for weeks, yet passengers are waiting until days beforehand to find out what skeleton services will be in place. Whatever other lessons are learned by the DFT from this dispute, a key  one will have to be that early information is crucial in allowing potential passengers to make informed decisions about how, where and when they can travel and what alternative arrangements they might need to make.
I was stunned to see the Secretary of State appear to call for an overtime ban for striking rail workers. The entire railway can only function on overtime. One thing that the ScotRail rest day and overtime issue has highlighted is the antiquated rostering system we have in rail systems across the UK. ScotRail has been working to phase that out. That job has been hindered by the pandemic and the impact it has had on driver training—130 new drivers would be in place on the network right now if covid had not hit. Training and recruitment is back on track, with those drivers now scheduled to finish training and be deployed over the next 18 months.
That will go hand in hand with the agreement that ASLEF is now recommending to its members, which will bring Sundays into the working week and put a truly seven-day railway in place over the coming years. That agreement also includes, as highlighted by my colleague on the Transport Committee, the hon. Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder), revenue sharing for all ScotRail staff when revenue targets are met. That kind of initiative—giving workers a stake, not just in their job roles but across the service—should be considered across the industry and taken to the negotiating table by the Secretary of State.
Elsewhere in Parliament today, there is a debate on fire and rehire secured by the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi). I was keen to take part in that debate, but my Front-Bench duties have brought me here. One of the key points in the speech I would have made there is equally valid here: modern and progressive industrial relations must involve dialogue and collective working between management and the workforce. It is clear that the Secretary of State appears to have been doing everything possible to run far away from the very thought of even appearing progressive or modern. He suggested that striking rail workers should be banned from getting overtime, despite the reliance of the network on overtime and rest day working—a situation we are working on in Scotland.
The Secretary of State wrote a column for The Sun about “rapacious union barons”
and the RMT executive holding
“a gun to the industry’s head”,
while
“ministers are determined to ensure strikers cannot milk the system”.
He used veiled threats to bring in unqualified, untrained staff to bust strikes, which simply poured even more fuel on a fire of his own Department’s making. That might go down well around the Cabinet table or at the next meeting of the 1922 committee—at least when it is not trying to change the rules for the next leadership election—but that is not the way to show actual leadership, and it certainly is not the way to negotiate with workers who are at the end of their tether with a Department that has used rail to grab headlines when it suits, but quietly dumps the negative stories when it suits, too, whether that is HS2 to Leeds and Bradford, the Golborne link or the truncated Great Western electrification.
Passengers and rail workers all want to see a better railway that delivers efficiency, punctuality, value and convenience. The Government’s attempt to drive a wedge  between those groups and their ambitions are as predictable as they are regressive. They are the behaviours of the past and of those with their heads in the sand. Ministers must meet transport workers and trade unions to resolve this dispute before mass disruption affects us all, and in doing so commit to no redundancies, as the Scottish Government have.
This motion—in fact, this whole approach—is all part of the Tory culture war to cripple unions, undermine strikes, ban disruptive protests and end pickets with temporary agency staff, and it highlights yet again why the Tories are unfit to govern. Rail has a bright future. In Scotland, after decades of underinvestment and gradual decline, electrification and decarbonisation have been a core part of the Government agenda for every party that has been the Administration, whether Labour, Liberal or SNP. Sadly, we have not had a Conservative Government in Scotland yet.

Angus MacNeil: Not sadly at all.

Gavin Newlands: It was ironic. Electrification and decarbonisation are a key part of the drive towards a net zero society and a more balanced and sustainable economy, but that modernisation has to be accompanied by a modern, mature industrial relations strategy. That maturity and modernity was demonstrated by ScotRail and the trade unions in Scotland this month in coming to an agreement that benefits staff and the network, and the contrast with the utterances of the Secretary of State and his team could not be clearer.
The Secretary of State is a dinosaur stuck in the dark ages of industrial relations, retreating to his ideological instincts instead of looking elsewhere to see how to manage a railway and work collectively with staff and unions to plot a path for the future. It is not too late for him and this Government to see sense and join the rest of us in the 21st century, to learn lessons from elsewhere on these isles and in Europe, and to take heed of the voices in the industry, unions and management who want a grown-up discussion about where the industry goes. This motion is not grown-up. If the Secretary of State is serious about a new start for railways, he should seek permission to withdraw it immediately.

David Mundell: I want to bring the debate back to passengers and rail users, because my constituents do not just face the strikes next week; they have faced months of industrial action by the RMT affecting the TransPennine network.
We have seen weekend services completely and utterly disrupted. We have seen regular cancellations of weekday services because of the issues around rest day working and working to rule on that issue. We have the conductor dispute, which means that there is essentially no reliable Sunday service. As someone who has worked for 20 years to improve services at Lockerbie station and to encourage people to get on the railways, I can say that these issues undermine confidence in the railways. Lockerbie station is the hub for the rural south of Scotland. There are, particularly for journeys to Edinburgh—

Angus MacNeil: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

David Mundell: No, I will not, because the hon. Gentleman would be well advised to learn about the south of Scotland and services that connect Scotland to the rest of the United Kingdom.
We have faced the undermining of confidence in rail travel, but we have also seen—this has not been touched on enough in this debate—disruption to individuals. Constituents of mine travel to hospital appointments on these services. They sometimes have to travel 40 miles to get to the station, only to find that the train has been cancelled at the last minute and they cannot get to a cancer appointment in Edinburgh. They cannot carry out the normal activities that people would want in terms of shopping and leisure, and they cannot carry out their work, and it is totally and utterly unacceptable, and it has gone on for months. The strike and the industrial action have not brought the issue to a resolution; they have simply affected adversely all those people who want to use rail services, and it is not acceptable.
I am not saying that TransPennine and others are not without blame in this. One of my constituents’ complaints, which I have raised with the Rail Minister, the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), is that through something like Traveline, people can actually buy a ticket for a train that has been cancelled, and that cannot be right. It cannot benefit anyone to undermine confidence in rail services. I have worked hard to ensure that my constituents have a full and comprehensive timetable that allows travel not only from Edinburgh and Glasgow, but importantly into the rest of the United Kingdom, and that is being completely and utterly disrupted and undermined.
I travelled to London by train last Monday, because something important was happening in Parliament, only to find that two cancelled trains had to be combined with the Avanti service that was coming to London. The guard threatened to cancel that train too, because there were too many people on it for health and safety. Passengers who wanted to get on the service at Penrith were refused. That is not the way that our rail services should be operating, and it is not the way that the unions, which should clearly want our rail services to not just continue but expand and grow, should support those services.
To conclude, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) did not mention it, but ScotRail does not run all rail services in Scotland; there are other services that connect Scotland to the rest of the United Kingdom. Let us not have such a blinkered approach from the Scottish Government that merely focuses on rail services within Scotland. People in Scotland want to travel across the whole United Kingdom.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nigel Evans: Order. As hon. Members can see, there is a lot of interest in this debate. The winding-up speeches will start no later than 4.45 pm, with 10 minutes each for the Front-Bench spokespeople. John McDonnell is next for five minutes, but to get as many people in as we can, we will then drop the time limit to three minutes.

John Martin McDonnell: Let me clarify one point if I may. There has been reference to RMT donations to individual Members and the  declaration of interests. I thought the declaration of interests was annual, but I make it absolutely clear that the RMT contributed to my constituency party during the general election, which I declared properly and of which I am proud. RMT members were the first to move at the TUC that the Labour party should be established; that union is part of our movement. I am proud to be supported by it and I am proud to be part of the RMT parliamentary group. That gives me a relationship with workers in the railway estate in my constituency, which enables me to speak with some authority—I try, anyway—on rail matters. Let me put that to rest: I am proud of the support that it gives to my constituency party.

Steve Brine: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

John Martin McDonnell: If it is on that, no, because there are more important points to be honest.
We need to return the debate to what the dispute is about. I refer to the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman). The union has three demands in the negotiations so I will make three points. The first demand is for no compulsory redundancies—compulsory is the key word. There has never been a time when the RMT has not negotiated job losses, but there has always been a principle that they should not be compulsory. I remember that Bob Crow never lost a dispute, and neither has Mick Lynch, because they are sensible about the nature of the disputes that they get into.

Chris Loder: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

John Martin McDonnell: Let me press on.
The union’s second demand is to get some form of inflation proofing of members’ incomes, and who can blame it when inflation is rising by anything between 7% and 11%? That is what ordinary working people want.

Mark Jenkinson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

John Martin McDonnell: Let me press on.
Let us also be clear about wages in the industry, which are linked. The median wage is £31,000. Drivers are largely represented by ASLEF, so the vast bulk of people who we are talking about are station staff, cleaners and others whose wages range between £20,000 and £30,000. We are not talking about people on very high wages, so inflation proofing is important to them at the moment
The third demand is where we have some problems—I understand that. It is that when there are changes in jobs and conditions of work, they should be subject to negotiation and—this is the difficult bit—agreement. We know that this dispute will be settled at some stage, so the issue is how bloody it will get. What we all have to do, as I say on the RMT parliamentary group as well, is to facilitate an exchange that enables a resolution.
That is why today’s letter is important. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle is right to say, “Well, it was unconditional”, but it is unconditional from the Government as well. At the moment, it is important to just get everyone through the door. The Government have not put conditions on and neither has the union.  The union has not asked for conditions from the Government, and nor should the Government ask for conditions from it. Often, in organising a ballot about industrial action, time limits are in place. At this time, when we are faced with the disruption that is there, an act of good faith such as sitting in the same room is important—it might not work.

Huw Merriman: I am in danger of agreeing with the right hon. Gentleman, who makes a very good point. It may well be, in return for giving way a little in saying, “Okay, we’ll sit down with you and then not strike”, that the RMT needs to hear that there will not be a need for compulsory redundancies, because the way the workforce works, voluntary redundancies should probably be taken up anyway and then that could be the natural progression.

John Martin McDonnell: The hon. Gentleman knows what these negotiations are like. My background is the National Union of Mineworkers, then the TUC and so on—I have been a trade unionist for the last 50 years—and in every sort of negotiation, the key issue is just getting through that door. Once we get through that door and are face to face starting those negotiations off, anything can happen. We have all been there, and we can have a bloody great row, but at least we are talking. That is all the RMT is asking for.
Let me just say that Members need to know the atmosphere at the moment. I have been talking at various union conferences—I was at Unison yesterday and all the rest—and there is a concern that we are going back to the 1980s, and I saw what happened in the 1980s. My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), who is here, was an active miner at the time, and I was a member of the NUM head office. What happened then was that there was a Government will to somehow take on the trade union movement, and we got described as the “enemy within”.
If anyone thinks it is to their advantage politically to start taking the RMT on as the enemy within in this situation, they are sorely mistaken, because it is not just about the RMT. At every union conference I have been to, there is a real anxiety. There is an anxiety about protection of their members against this cost of living crisis, and I have to say that there is an anxiety about protecting themselves against some of the threats that have come from the Government—minimal services, bans on overtime and all the rest—which is inflammatory when we are trying to get a negotiated settlement.

Angus MacNeil: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

John Martin McDonnell: I do not have time, to be honest, or do I get a second extra minute? [Interruption.] I will give way.

Angus MacNeil: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Is it not ironic, or does he not think it is ironic that, with a Prime Minister who talks about a higher-wage economy, the minute people start—

Nigel Evans: Order. Can the hon. Gentleman face the front, please?

Angus MacNeil: I am trying to do that and face the right hon. Gentleman, which is not easy, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Surely it is ironic that, with a Prime Minister who talks about a higher-wage economy, the first time people come along just wanting to maintain wages—not let wages go lower—his Government are opposing it, with the right hon. Gentleman having to make a very reasonable case in this House pointing out why trade union members have to do what they are doing.

John Martin McDonnell: Perhaps I pointed in the wrong direction, but I meant no disrespect to the hon. Member.
I have talked at several trade union conferences and I have been consulting trade unions in my own constituency, and the big fear at the moment is that their members are facing a potential avalanche of costs coming at them, and they have had their wages largely frozen for 12 years, with some having in effect had a wage cut. They do not see any light at the end of the tunnel, and they see a Government now threatening intimidatory legislation to undermine trade union rights further, so then we ask the question: what do they do? All they can do—this is all that is left to them—is to withdraw their labour, and that is what we are seeing.
This is not just in the RMT. Unite has 100 disputes taking place at the moment. The general secretary of Unison has for the first time—I have never heard this before—said to Unison members, “Go back to your branches and prepare for action.” The PCS is in dispute as well. If we look at what is happening, it is because we have working-class people frightened for their futures and deeply insecure about their futures. They are faced with a Government who, to be frank, on this particular issue will not even open the door for a meeting. That is why the atmosphere has been so fouled at the moment. I just think that Conservative Members should know that this is not the time for braying speeches; it is a time for consideration and an element of responsibility to be introduced into this debate.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nigel Evans: Order. There is now a three-minute limit.

Mike Penning: To go back to close to the final comments of the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), she said she was looking for a firefighter—well, here he is. I was a member of the Fire Brigades Union when it was thrown out of the Labour party because we were too militant, so I have been around this circuit many times.
I found the speech of the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) quite frightening, because we can reverse that argument about the trade unions going back and getting ready for a fight. That is turning round to the British public and saying, “You voted Tory, so we’re going to punish you.” That feeling is as strong in my constituency now and in other parts of the country as it has ever been. This dispute does not need to take place, because it is too early to call this sort of strike. It is really early—we are right at the front. Why now? Why call a strike at such an early position? [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an  Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) has been chuntering away from a sedentary position for about the last two hours. Shut up! We are fed up with it.

Nigel Evans: Order. Let us be much more conciliatory—[Interruption.] That is my job, not that of the right hon. Gentleman. Let us be conciliatory and use moderate language throughout this debate. It doesn’t need any more heat.

Mike Penning: What I am trying to get across is that there is anger here, on both sides, and my constituents will not be able to go to work, because people are on strike who did not have to go to work during the lockdown when the unions were getting their money. What is going on here is that we are being punished. My constituents are being punished by the Labour party, which will not come out against this strike.

Angus MacNeil: rose—

Mike Penning: No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. He has been chuntering away for the past two hours, and that’s enough for anybody. Labour Members could contribute to this. They could turn around and say, “This is the wrong time; this is not the right time”. Instead, because they are so petrified of their paymasters, they have to condone it.

Lyn Brown: rose—

Mike Penning: I will give way to the hon. Lady. She is a good friend of mine.

Lyn Brown: I know, and I am very fond of the right hon. Gentleman. His constituency is not completely dissimilar to mine. We both know that we have additional people using food banks, and that those people are in work. There is a huge amount of fear—reasonable fear—within our communities about people not being able to afford to put food on the table and pay their rent. Does he agree that the Government have a responsibility to get round the table, protect livelihoods, and show some respect and concern for those who are suffering from the cost of living crisis?

Mike Penning: That is why it was so appalling for a trade union leader to turn around and say that he will never deal with a Tory Government. The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) could come up with a letter on the day of this debate, when there is almost nobody on the Opposition Benches, even though the unions pay for them, almost completely—[Interruption.] I said the Benches; I did not direct that at the hon. Member for West Ham (Ms Brown). What can my constituents say when figures come out that a train driver earns 50-odd-thousand pounds a year? On my council estates people dream of that sort of money every day of the week. [Interruption.] Yes, they do get paid less than me, but people can put their name on the ballot paper and have a go as well, which is why I beat a Labour MP for my seat. Those sedentary comments from the Back Benches are not useful.
We do not need to have strikes or the cancellation of train services for my commuters all the time. Southern rail, which we spoke about earlier, caused chaos in my constituency. Week in, week out I listened to the local  radio, and trains were cancelled because they did not have the staff. The jobs are there. What is going on? Let’s stop the strike now, and then discussions can take place. This is not a nationalised railway; these are employers and that is a completely different situation. We are not in the days of the miners’ strikes; we are not in the days when the Government ran the mines. Railways today are different, and I passionately believe that they are going to try to punish my constituents, and particularly those in the northern seats, because the British public dared to vote Tory—dared to vote Tory!—and the union barons hate it and so does the Labour party.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nigel Evans: Order. Let us try an experiment and see whether we can get through the next three minutes without any shouting on either side. I call Sarah Green.

Sarah Green: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. After the challenges of the pandemic, the rail industry is just starting to bounce back, and with working from home now a much more accepted working practice, we might have to accept that passenger numbers may not return to pre-pandemic levels. Numbers are trending upwards, as people are returning to work in person or looking to get away for a family holiday, but that recovery risks being a fragile one if the strikes go ahead as planned. Too many passengers have been plagued by delays, cancellations and general disruption to their journeys over the past year. First that was down to the pandemic, then the “pingdemic”, and they are now facing the biggest wave of industrial action in over 30 years.
In my constituency of Chesham and Amersham, more than 6,000 people rely on rail to get to work every day. Those passengers, and others like them who commute into London from the outermost stops on the underground, are facing a double whammy of overground and underground disruption, with strikes in London on 21 June.
The right to strike is fundamental, but that does not mean it is right to strike next week. The RMT should realise that wreaking havoc with the UK’s transport system at a time like this will not make people more sympathetic to their cause. Indeed, I spoke with a transport user group in my constituency this morning and it made that point to me quite emphatically. What we need is for the Government and the unions to get back around the table, as has been mentioned previously, to resolve this dispute before it starts to impact on passengers. And by passengers, I mean patients, students, workers and, as the hon. Member for Bury North (James Daly) mentioned, self-employed people who will not get any lost earnings back. Those are the people the strike will hurt: the people who rely on the railways.
This is not a problem the unions alone can solve. It is all very well for the Government to condemn the decision to strike, but that does not address the key problem. The Secretary of State’s effort to solve the problem, suggesting that agency staff will be able to fill such gaps in the future, will not cut it. I also wonder just how the Government would find 50,000 agency workers, when the UK has a record number of vacancies and not enough workers to fill them. The Government cannot  allow people to lose jobs because they cannot make it into the office. They cannot allow the NHS to be disrupted as doctors and nurses are unable to reach hospitals.
It is time for the Government to come to the table and work with the unions to avoid disruption. They need to thrash out a way forward that is fair for workers, fair for the taxpayer and fair for passengers.

Robert Largan: I declare an interest of sorts: I am the son of a trade union rep. I am very proud of the work he did in standing up for the people he worked with to secure them better conditions and safety in the workplace. He always said to me that if trade unions did not exist, we would have to invent them. They play a very important role in our society, and I am certainly not someone who comes to this place as a natural union basher. I will say this, though: I think the RMT has got this strike badly wrong in both timing and tactics.
On timing, it will have a huge impact on a huge number of people across the country, particularly as it falls in the middle of exams and after the horrendous two years young people have had. This will make things even worse. It will have an impact on businesses not just in terms of the huge number of lost hours of work, but for those reliant on footfall from passengers, including Twig at Glossop station where I get my Monday morning coffee every week and Edwards Wine Bar in Hadfield where I often enjoy a drink on my way back from meetings. It will also have a huge impact on workers who cannot get to work, including doctors and nurses. And let us not forget the self-employed, who will not be able to earn money because they cannot work due to the strikes.
The strike is also bad in terms of tactics. It is a self-defeating tactic by the RMT. We are at a very critical moment for public transport and the rail sector. It has had a very difficult two years due to covid, with plummeting passenger numbers and record levels of subsidy just to try to keep the service above water. We are now in a position where we face the need to modernise and deal with the drop in revenue. The strike will only harm that work towards modernisation and sustainability. In the long run, I fear that that will have a huge impact on the industry and the workers the RMT professes to represent.

Greg Knight: As a number of train operating companies are urging the public not to seek to travel at all by rail during the week of the strikes, is there not an overwhelming case for requiring road congestion charging and similar schemes to be suspended until the rail network is back to normal?

Robert Largan: I sincerely hope that that is a proposal the Government and Mayors look at very closely in their areas.
We are currently dealing with very reduced rail services as a result of staff shortages. The three lines I represent are currently running on very reduced timetables, which are causing massive amounts of problems. The problems we see with this industrial dispute will only make that worse. We have seen this go on for months. There has been a large number of cancelled trains, particularly on the Glossop line. We have seen a lot of work to rule and  disputes over rosters, which in fact led to a High Court injunction from Northern to ASLEF only a couple of weeks ago. We are already seeing some problems due to industrial disputes and they desperately need resolving.
I really think the RMT has got its tactics and timing very badly wrong. I hope it can reconsider. I sincerely hope we are able to avoid what I believe would be very damaging and self-defeating strikes.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nigel Evans: I remind hon. Members that everybody taking part in the debate is expected to be here for the wind-ups and should stay for substantial amounts of the debate and at least for the next two speakers after they have spoken.

Ian Byrne: As a proud trade unionist, I start by paying tribute to all rail staff in Liverpool, West Derby and across the country. I stand in absolute solidarity with them and am fully behind their demands for improved conditions, terms and pay and to safeguard the safety of the public. To be absolutely clear, the industrial action that will take place next week is the result of the political choices made by this Government, who are calling the shots. They are a Government who have shown every day they have been in power, throughout the pandemic and in this cost of living crisis, their complete disdain for rail workers and their disregard for their pay and conditions, job security, safety and welfare. It is shameful.
We can see where this Government’s loyalties lie from the way that they were so quick to bail out the private operators who continue to make vast profits while on the other hand bringing this despicable motion to Parliament to attack key workers who are demanding fair pay and conditions. The strikes are absolutely a last resort and the RMT has been talking to employers and Ministers for almost two years to find a resolution. A key part of the dispute is that employers will not withdraw the threat of thousands of compulsory redundancies pushing many rail workers into poverty in the middle of the worst cost of living crisis in living memory. For passengers, that will also mean increased risks to safety and critical infrastructure with fewer staff on the trains, including the removal of guards and catering staff, cuts to cleaning and the closure of all ticket offices. That is not modernisation; it is a managed decline of our railways. The public should also be aware of the consequences of the proposed cuts that are being fought by the RMT: that our railways would be less safe. How can that be acceptable in the world’s fifth richest country?
It would be interesting to know how many Members across the Benches have been on strike to ensure their families’ wellbeing and future. How many realise what it entails to go out on strike as an absolute last resort? I was on strike for six months, locked out of my factory, to save jobs in the printing industry. It is a time of stress and worry about the future and what it may hold for your family. The absolute hypocrisy of a Prime Minister and Government who trumpet soundbites about an economy built on highly paid and highly skilled jobs while bringing motions to this place that go against protecting the jobs he desires.

Tahir Ali: Members vote to go on strike as an absolute last resort. It happens when everything else has failed. In the strike action planned for Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday, I will show my solidarity by joining trade union members wholeheartedly. Would Government Members do the same and show solidarity with the working class?

Ian Byrne: I agree with my hon. Friend. Why did we not see the same urgency in calling out British Gas for using fire and rehire? Where was the anger and the motion calling out P&O for its disgraceful sacking of its entire loyal workforce by Zoom? There has been a total absence of leadership, a total absence of standing up to those rogue companies and a complete absence of any legislation in the Queen’s Speech to protect workers.
Trade unions are a force for good, unlike the Conservative party, which is responsible for the worst living standards in living memory and continues to let millions of people shiver and starve in their own homes because of the political choices it makes.

Mark Jenkinson: I am a former trade unionist and I have probably been out on strike more than most people on either side of this House. I recognise the fundamental right to withdraw labour, but does he not also recognise, as I did, the moral duty not to interrupt others going about their daily business and earning fair day’s pay?

Ian Byrne: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman and I am glad that he was not a trade union rep who I worked with.
I know what side I stand on. I know and I believe that the trade unions will act in the best interest of people in this country, unlike the people we have heard for the past two hours denigrate trade union members and trade unions.

David Evennett: I express my strong support for the motion, which
“condemns the decision of the rail unions to hold three days of strikes”
that will cause significant and needless disruption for many of my constituents. I commend my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for his sensible and reasonable speech.
I am very disappointed with Labour Front Benchers, who are stuck in the past. They always support the unions against the general public; they have no interest in thinking about the suffering that constituents will face if there are strikes next week. The actions next week will harm our economy at this vital time, cost businesses millions of pounds and disrupt vital NHS services and GCSE and A-level exams. If the strikes go ahead, the disruption will be unforgivable. The electorate in my constituency and others will never forget those who did not care and who showed a lack of concern.
There will also be a loss of earnings for the workers and rail companies involved with the walkout, much-reduced spending by those who travel by rail, a knock-on effect on tourism spending, and the potential to significantly intensify the disruption of existing supply chains. Greater London is now recovering financially, economically and socially from the covid pandemic, but the strikes will set back our recovery in our capital city. The Centre for Economics and Business Research estimates that on the  first day of the strikes alone, when the mass walkout is set to have the greatest impact, about a quarter of a million people will be unable to work. It predicts that the cost to the economy will be £100 million, with London suffering about 60% of the economic hit.
I understand that on the Southeastern network alone, most stations and routes will be closed, with services severely restricted and a maximum of 20% of trains running. That will cause huge damage to the economy and the travelling public. My Southeastern service is not the best normally: the Secretary of State well knows that it is unsatisfactory, with cancellations, delays and poor information.
Reform of the railways is essential to make them fit for the future. “Modernisation” must be the key word. The Government have provided great support to our railways, keeping trains running for key workers and ensuring that nobody at the train operating companies or Network Rail was furloughed. That was a real investment and achievement by the Government to help the people who work in the industry, which is so vital. It is therefore so disappointing to see the situation that we are in today.
It is still not too late to call off the strike, so I urge the unions to sit down with the industry, take on board the misery that their actions will cause, and act responsibly—maybe helped by Opposition Front Benchers. My constituents deserve nothing less than a service next week.

Rachael Maskell: We come to this situation in very challenging times, with the cost of living biting hard for working people. There are vast numbers of rail workers in York, as the Minister will know, and they are really struggling at the moment. I have been talking to them about the challenges that they have been facing. They obviously want to see the dispute resolved as soon as possible, because they are the ones who are really struggling, with threats not only to their job security, but to their livelihood, as house prices, food prices and energy prices escalate. These are members of the public as well.
The reality is that when we get into a situation of industrial dispute, we need not hyperbole, but humility. We need to come into the industrial space with fresh thinking, ready to listen and engage. I have heard a lot of shouting today, but not a lot of listening. When the general secretary of the RMT is willing to enter that space, take the first move and meet the Government and employers, it is the responsibility of the employers and the Government to come into the space, listen and engage.
In industrial relations, people have to change the direction of their talks to reach a result. If the Government take a step forward, we can see the pathway to resolution. The traditional approach that the Government take to industrial relations is so deeply damaging, so I ask the Minister to really consider the actions that she could take to make such a difference in this dispute.
Many things that the Secretary of State put out were not included in the statement. I could think of a fifth, a sixth and a seventh thing that could be on the table: the long-term stability needed across the rail industry; long-term planning around industrial relations and workforce, in order to get smoothing so as not to have to go down the  road of redundancy, let alone compulsory redundancy. There are so many issues. The Government are concerned about the fall in patronage, yet they have not put forward a patronage plan to increase rail travel across the board, which is absolutely essential with the climate crisis that we are facing.
Resolution can be found for this dispute, to provide the long-term security needed across our rail sector. If we are to truly build back better—something that the Government seem to have forgotten—they need to think about how they build strong industrial relations for the future. I trust the Minister is listening, and will act after today’s debate.

Chris Loder: It is absolutely right that the Government have brought this motion to the House of Commons today. I heard the cries of Labour in yesterday’s business statement not to bring the motion to the House, suggesting that we should just get parties around the table, but how is that remotely possible when the RMT’s strike ballot date—the date of the declaration of the intention to strike—was 24 May, two days before the pay negotiations even started on 26 May? It confirms a rampant appetite for industrial action that tells us everything we need to know about the RMT—a union so addicted to striking that it was determined to do so before the pay talks even began. We know it is an addiction, because only a few months ago it was even striking against itself, with a picket line outside RMT HQ in north London.
Before being elected to this place, I worked for the railway for 20 years. I left school and worked my way up through the ranks on the stations and on the trains. I was an RMT member as well. But if anyone in the House needs convincing that they should support the Government’s motion today, against the RMT’s series of strikes, let me tell the House about something called RMT Broad Left—the hard left faction of the RMT union.
In order for the present RMT general secretary to be elected, he did a deal with the hard left of his union that in return for their backing, two communists were given leading jobs in the union, including the presidency. And they were not just any communists; they are on record as being anti-Ukrainian, pro-Russian separatists. They protested outside the Ukrainian embassy in London in 2015, following Moscow’s invasion of Crimea, while wearing the black and orange ribbon, a symbol of Russian military valour. I could go on.
This is very, very serious. This country faces being brought to a standstill by Putin apologists—Russian-sympathising, militant communists who are bankrolling the Labour party to the extent that they have bought its silence. We cannot allow that to happen. There is a deeply sinister element to these strikes, and it is this Conservative Government, and this Secretary of State, who are on the side of the taxpayer, the passenger and the staff, because we want to see staff on the railways have a pay rise, but we also need to ensure that we make the railway fit for purpose.

Ian Lavery: I first draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I received support from the RMT union at the  2019 general election. Anybody reading the right-wing press all the weekend would have thought that that was something to be ashamed of. Well, I want to tell everyone in the House clearly that I am not ashamed; I am extremely proud of it. If I asked every hon. Member sitting here where they got their support from, we might find that there were some very difficult questions to answer. I am proud that I have got support from people in the RMT—the train drivers, ordinary people, the taxpayers.

Lee Anderson: rose—

Ian Lavery: I will not give way.
The right hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Sir David Evennett), who is no longer in his seat, suggested that the members of the RMT and the unions were against the general public. The RMT—the members of the RMT, the members of the trade union movement—are part of the general public. They are workers of this nation, and in this case, we are talking about key workers. I am proud to represent the unions. I am proud to have been a trade union member all of my life. And just for the record, I want to avoid any dispute next week—but if there are disputes next week, I will be standing shoulder to shoulder with representatives of the RMT.

Chris Loder: I concur with the hon. Gentleman that we should try to avoid these strikes, but could he help us to understand why the declaration of the intention to strike was made two days before the pay talks even started? That does not show spirit on the part of the RMT to avoid strike action.

Ian Lavery: I heard what the hon. Member was saying before, but these negotiations have been going on for two years. This is not just about train drivers; basically, it is about the cleaners, the people who work in the ticket offices—as he probably did—the people who work on the tracks, the people who look after people in the trains and the conductors. It is about the track and about health and safety; it is about everything connected with the rail networks. We need these people. These were the key workers. We need these people to support a strong, healthy and safe railway. We need to be careful what we ask for. There have been negotiations for two years now, and that is the frustration.
A letter was sent to the Secretary of State this morning, asking for discussions. He dismissed it, and at the Dispatch Box today he basically laughed when he was asked if he would be trying to facilitate arrangements to avoid the strikes. He laughed! Why does he not accept that the best way to address the situation is to get everybody around a table, lock the door and get it resolved? We are talking about health and safety, about compulsory redundancies and about inflation-proof pay rises. These are basic human rights, to be perfectly honest.
I just want to say: do not believe anybody who is criticising the RMT—do not believe for one second that they will not come for you. Do not think that they will not come for your job, your pensions, your income and your future. As Pastor Martin Niemöller said,
“First they came for the Socialists,
And I did not speak out because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
And I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
And I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for”—

Nigel Evans: Order.

Claire Coutinho: I represent a commuter-belt area and many of my workers need the trains to go to work. On the strike days they will get no service at all and on the days in between they are going to get a Sunday service. If the trains are not running, at best those people will work from home. They might be forced to use a car, but we all know the price of fuel at the moment. At worst, they cannot work at all. Worst of all—as has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Robert Largan) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning), both of whom have trade union backgrounds—the unions have jumped the gun. This is way too soon to cause this kind of damage to the economy and to the lives of individual people, and it will be millions of low-paid workers, and exam students, who will pay the price.
I believe in the power of unions. I think it is right that workers should be able to organise, have a collective voice and increase their bargaining power, but where unions are disrupting services that are already losing money hand over fist, demanding pay rises that are undeliverable and resisting modernisation, they are only doing their own workers harm. Any one of my constituents who uses the train will tell you that the railways are struggling to keep pace with demand and the needs of passengers, post-pandemic. Passenger numbers are down a fifth and train revenues are at about 60%. That is causing havoc with train services.
The taxpayer has stepped in. To give some sense of perspective, the Office of Rail and Road put the total industry income at £20.7 billion in 2020-21, of which £16 billion came from the taxpayer and just £2.5 billion came from passenger income. That is clearly not sustainable. The RMT argues that wages should go up by an inflation-proof 11%, but what private sector industry could withstand that logic when revenues are down 60%? Which member of the public—the public are not getting an 11% pay rise, by the way—should pay higher taxes for this increase?
I understand that workers are worried about inflation, but our cost of living package, which independent organisations such as the Institute for Fiscal Studies and Martin Lewis of MoneySavingExpert have said is very generous, will apply to rail workers, too. People on means-tested benefits will receive £1,200 of support this year to help with the cost of living.
I also understand that workers are worried about job losses. If people stop using ticket offices, however, how is it possible to keep increasing pay over time for a service that is being used less and less? Surely it is best to match workers with jobs and services that are in demand so they have a sustainable path to higher wages.

Chris Loder: Five members of Network Rail staff died on the tracks last year, with three of them being directly hit by trains. Does my hon. Friend agree it is  right that the Government and Network Rail look to find ways to reduce that risk, including through industry reform? That would also help with some of the issues she has articulated.

Claire Coutinho: I wholeheartedly believe that workers and unions have the right to try to ensure safety. The RMT has been around for a long time and, particularly when the railways were very dangerous during its early decades, it did a huge amount of work to push for safety, which is a good thing. The problem is that the RMT is now leading its members down the garden path. It is driving down the use of trains, which will reduce train revenues and therefore mean less money in the industry for the wages it is trying to achieve.
Opposition Members have not been very clear about their position, but I hope they will clarify in their speeches whether they agree that the unions should delay these strikes and allow time for negotiations, that these strikes are not fair on ordinary commuters in low-paid jobs who will not be paid for work they cannot get to, that an 11% pay rise, funded by taxpayers, is not fair when those taxpayers will not get an 11% pay rise, and that the system needs to be modernised if the RMT wants ongoing pay increases, as these vast Government subsidies are not sustainable.

Richard Burgon: Nothing excites Conservative Members more than the chance to give the trade unions a good kicking. Some of their speeches have been chilling in their anti-trade union bile. Why do they not get as passionate about the number of food banks in this country as they do about bashing the trade unions and bashing working people who are trying to defend their pay, their jobs, their terms, their conditions and, of course, public safety? As a trade union lawyer for 10 years before being elected to Parliament, I know something that many Conservative Members do not seem to know: working people go on strike as a last resort, not a first resort.

Lee Anderson: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and I have been on strike a few times myself. Does he think that any Opposition Member who has received a donation from the RMT should put that money in a pot to help people who suffer during next week’s rail strike? Does he also think that other MPs who have stolen money from the mineworkers—165 grand in the case of the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) —should pay it back?

Nigel Evans: Order. Please withdraw that remark about stealing money.

Lee Anderson: No.

Nigel Evans: You have to.

Lee Anderson: No, he stole it.

Nigel Evans: No, you have to. I implore you to withdraw the remark. Please, Lee, withdraw the remark and sit down.

Lee Anderson: I withdraw the remark.

Nigel Evans: Thank you.

Ian Lavery: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. You have been in the Chair three times when the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) has made allegations. He withdraws his ridiculous remark and consistently comes back to say it again. As Deputy Speaker, you are not protecting the likes of myself. I need your protection.

Nigel Evans: Order. Do not make allegations against the Chair, ever. You saw how I treated Mr Anderson. You just leave it with me—I don’t need lectures on how to do my job.

Ian Lavery: I will leave it there.

Nigel Evans: Thank you very much.

Richard Burgon: The only time we seem to hear Conservative MPs worrying about the future of our children, our public services, nurses, doctors and other workers seems to be when they are condemning a potential strike. Isn’t it funny that they do not seem to have this concern for working people at any other point?
Today, I was looking at an interesting letter, dated 27 May 2020, from the Secretary of State for Transport to the RMT. There was a handwritten flourish at the end of the letter in the handwriting of the Secretary of State, and it said:
“Thank you for your continued engagement with Chris Heaton-Harris and me as we try to bring services back together. Your members have been true heroes!”
Those are the words of the Secretary of State for Transport, written in his own hand, to the RMT.

James Daly: Many self-employed people have been heroes throughout the pandemic. They have gone out every day to provide services. As a result of this strike, they will not be able to go to work, earn money and eat. So what does the hon. Gentleman say to those people, who will not be able to earn money to put food on the table for their families as a result of the actions of the RMT?

Richard Burgon: What I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that the Transport Secretary should reply positively to the letter from the RMT today, which is in the public domain and which asks for a meeting with him and the Chancellor, without preconditions, to try to sort this out. The RMT does not want this strike to have to go ahead.
The truth is that the Conservatives are living their Thatcherite revivalist fantasies; anybody would think we were back to the age of the “enemy within”. Let me tell them this: train drivers, cleaners and people who work on our railways are not the enemy within. They are true heroes. They are the people who keep our society running and who bring our communities together. They deserve to be treated with respect. The Secretary of State put in his own hand that they are true heroes, and I agree. If they are true heroes, why move this politically contemptuous motion today? This is from the same repugnant right-wing box as that sick Rwanda policy. It is all about kicking migrants, kicking workers and seeking to cling on to power. This motion, just like that vile Rwanda policy, is red meat for rabid Tory right-wing Back Benchers. That is why the Conservatives  have got so excited and so red-faced on those Back Benches today, shouting about unions and treating them as the enemy within.
Politics is about which side you are on. I am proud to be a supporter of the trade union movement and to be supported by it. The people who should be ashamed are those whose politics are framed not by mass movements of the working class but by the billionaires and those at the very top, who have done very well in this crisis. So I say: meet the RMT, agree to no compulsory redundances, agree that all rail workers should receive a fair pay rise that takes into account the rising cost of living, and agree that working conditions and jobs are subject to renegotiation and agreement with the RMT. Let us also stop lecturing rail workers on modernisation. They want to modernise, but we are not in the best place to lecture them about that, in this Ruritanian palace of powdered wigs, buckled shoes and swords. It makes us look out of touch. I will tell you this: the railway workers earn their pay; not every MP does.

Suzanne Webb: I recognise the vital role that railways play in driving the midlands engine and condemn the disruptive strikes planned for next week. Excuse the pun, Mr Deputy Speaker, but the question is: who is the Fat Controller? Is it Labour or the unions? I am deeply concerned about what Labour’s motives are for not coming out and publicly condemning the strike and about the unions’ motives for having this strike now. They appear to thrive on the disruption the strikes will cause. It is as though they wish to destabilise the country for their own gain. The contempt they hold for the public concerns me greatly.

Chris Loder: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is only the Secretary of State tabling this motion today that has forced the RMT to write to him to ask for a meeting in the first place?

Suzanne Webb: I completely and utterly agree. This is the first time we have had sight of that.
What will the strikes do? They are a gut punch for people and businesses. Industrial action will not just torpedo our economy; it will wreak havoc with people’s plans and livelihoods: pupils unable to take their exams, festival-goers and sports fans unable to see their favourite acts and teams, and a grieving family in my constituency who have campaigned tireless for justice for their son now unable to travel down to London next week to meet the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove), to discuss how he can better support victims’ families. It is an indulgent strike with a human cost.
What is Labour’s position on these strikes? Well, they cannot make up their minds. As has been said, the shadow Health Secretary said he would vote to go on strike if he were an RMT member, the Leader of the Opposition has his head buried in the sand, and his deputy dodged a question in a BBC interview on whether she supported the strikes, saying that she had a train to catch. Next week, there will be no such trains for Labour Members to use to run away from the simple question: are they for or against the strikes? The British people deserve an answer.
Others have spoken of the donations to the Labour party by the RMT. Labour Members say they are on the side of the workers and preach solidarity, but solidarity with whom? Not with workers; not with businesses. The only people Labour Members are in solidarity with are their union puppet masters. It seems like the RMT and Labour are at platform 9¾ when it comes to the strike and its impacts, yet back in the real world it is working people, businesses and pupils who will bear the brunt. While global cost of living pressures continue to bite, this strike is deeply damaging. We cannot have a railway system that is a steam locomotive in an electric age. Times are changing and the rail system needs to change too. I call on Labour and the unions to side with working people and stop this strike.

Grahame Morris: Before I begin, I would like to declare a couple of interests: I am a member of the RMT parliamentary group and I serve on the Select Committee on Transport. In fact, I am a member of numerous trade union groups that I am very proud of—the National Union of Journalists, the Public and Commercial Services Union, the bakers’ union, the justice union—and I have the great honour of chairing the Unite parliamentary group. When I first started work—when I had a proper job—I worked on the railways at a time when they were part of British Rail. It was not the RMT in those days; it was the National Union of Railwaymen. That was my first paid employment.
I want to emphasise how important it is that we take the heat out of this situation and think about how we can move forward and get a negotiated settlement. It is absolutely clear that the unions are doing this as a last resort. After two years of talks and discussions, they want to find a resolution to the problems their members face. This issue is not simply about the pay scales for train drivers, although I would say that that is a group of workers we rely on every day—they keep us safe, they are highly skilled and they should be properly rewarded. It is about people who clean the trains, the signalmen and the people who maintain the track. Those are all vital jobs that keep our railways running.
The talks have revealed that the employers—the privately owned train operators and train companies—have an agenda that is being driven by the Government. That will be disastrous for rail workers and passengers alike.
It has become clear that the Government, and the Treasury in particular, are calling the shots and directing employers. They are, in fact, underwriting the costs of the strike. The Transport Secretary referred to modernisation and safety-critical infrastructure, but what we are looking at here are: fewer staff on trains, including the removal of guards and catering staff; cuts to cleaning; and the closure of nearly all ticket offices. That is absolutely no good at all for anybody with disabilities or for individuals who are vulnerable.

Chris Stephens: rose—

Grahame Morris: I will give way to my good and honourable friend.

Chris Stephens: Surely the fact that the industrial action ballot has overcome the threshold that the Conservative party put in legislation tells us the depth of feeling among RMT members on these issues.

Grahame Morris: The feeling is very strong. I believe the margin was 71%, which is well above the Government’s threshold. Indeed, the treatment of the RMT Union and its members seems to be part of a wider agenda to weaken employment rights. I was one of many Members, including my friend, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens), and my hon. and right hon. Friends around me today, who were pressing the case for the Government to act on fire and rehire.
I was in the joint hearing of the Transport and the Business, Enterprise and Industrial Strategy Committees when we were taking testimony from the bad bosses of P&O Ferries who were boasting about their lack of consultation and their intention to drive down terms and conditions. We expect rather more from our own Government when it comes to the way in which the railway is being run. It is a huge and important national asset.
I want to put on record, so that there is no doubt, my solidarity with the RMT Union and with all the trade unions. Basic rights that govern pay and conditions at work were hard fought for and they were won through collective action; they were not handed out freely.
Let us not forget some of those appalling accidents at Ladbroke Grove, at Paddington and so on. One of the proposals that has been put forward is for 3,000 redundancies among people who maintain the tracks—

Nigel Evans: Order. I call James Daly.

James Daly: My hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) is no longer in her place, but I would like to associate myself with every single word of what she said in her brilliant speech. It was a lesson in reality given the financial situation that faces us at this time.
We were asked by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) whether we had ever been out on strike. My answer is no, because I had the temerity to be self-employed. If I went out on strike, I would not have been able to eat. So when I am asked why I stand here and make this speech and whose side I am on, I have to say that I am on the side of the self-employed worker. The hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) talked about a person with disabilities who cannot get treatment, or the older person who cannot get to their cancer treatment, because public transport is cut off to them.

Grahame Morris: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Daly: No, I will not give way.
I am on the side of the pupil who is taking their exams and who has gone through an appalling period during the pandemic. For all of these people who will suffer in what will almost certainly be six days of action, the Labour party—certainly those we have heard from today—could not care less. My constituents can suffer at the altar of the Labour party, which is not able to stand up to its friends in the trade union movement.  I have not heard one Opposition Member say the very simple words, “Do not go on strike.” If people go on strike, they will destroy people’s livelihoods, destroy people’s jobs and put even more financial pressure on the rail companies that are struggling with a drop in income at this moment in time.
I had a meeting with representatives from the North-West Partnership regarding the west coast main line. The gentleman I spoke to said that the level of business travellers using trains is at 20% of pre-pandemic levels. Why would anybody look at this course of action and say, “No, I am going to rely on travelling by train when I need to go to work, when I need to go to an important meeting, when I need to go somewhere.” I know the Labour party does not like to hear this, but I had the temerity to try to create wealth, to employ people, to pay my taxes and to create a better situation. What we have here is a train system that has gone through a very difficult period. It has seen a drop in income, a drop in revenue.
We must approach this situation with reality. We must also approach it with compassion for everyone, and the compassionate way to deal with this matter is for the RMT to make an immediate statement saying, “We are calling off this strike”—not suddenly to produce on a mobile phone on the day of this debate a letter that none of us has seen regarding a meeting: utterly, utterly counterproductive. It is not in the interests of our constituents, and on the Government side of the Chamber we will stand up for those who are hard-working, who need to get their health treatment or their education, who have done nothing wrong, but who will be punished by the Labour party and the RMT.

Zarah Sultana: This House has just discussed the Government’s disgusting Rwanda deportation policy. On Monday I attended a demonstration against that policy, coming directly from a debate in Parliament on the Government’s similarly disgraceful refusal to ban trans conversion therapy. That debate, the debate on the Rwanda deportations and this afternoon’s motion on the rail strike are connected: they are all about this Tory Government’s attempt to divide our communities and distract from their failure to serve the British people.
That is clear with the Rwanda policy, which has nothing to do with tackling people-smuggling and everything to do with whipping up hate, demonising marginalised groups and pitting people who were born here against people who seek asylum here. That is what the refusal to ban trans conversion therapy—letting abusive practices against trans people go unpunished in order to pit cis women against trans women—is about: division and distraction.
That is also what the demonisation of railway workers and the RMT Union is all about: threatening anti-democratic and anti-worker legislation; vilifying workers who are standing up for jobs, pay and conditions; and pitting those railway workers against other workers. It is all an attempt to distract and divide, at a time when this Government are overseeing a cost of living emergency and a growing poverty crisis across the country.
Railway workers are clear: this strike is a last resort, no matter what Conservative Members say. The union and the workers have been calling for the dispute to be  resolved for two years, but Ministers have refused to do so. Ministers have refused to get employers to withdraw the threat of compulsory redundancies against thousands of railway workers or to end the pay freeze for workers, which is really a pay cut, worth thousands of pounds per worker, when inflation rises to 10% and beyond. This dispute is not about modernising the railways or whatever else people say; it is about attacking workers, declining standards and worsening services for passengers.
These workers—we should applaud them for it—are standing up for their jobs and pay, but are being scapegoated by a Tory Government who would rather distract and divide.

Jeremy Corbyn: My hon. Friend must be aware of the anger that many people who work in the rail industry feel—those who clean and repair the carriages, those who repair the track and those who provide the catering that many Members of this House enjoy—at being told basically to take a pay cut and face compulsory redundancies at a time when billions has been poured into the train operating companies, which have done very nicely out of their cosy arrangement with this Government.

Zarah Sultana: I absolutely agree. These tactics from the Government are to stop us talking about the fact that private rail companies take more than £500 million out of the railway system every year in private profits. It is the richest in the country who are truly raking it in, from the Chancellor, who is one of the wealthiest people in the country, to the record number of UK billionaires, one third of whom donate to the Conservative Party—[Interruption.] Tory Members can make all the sounds they like, but the facts are the facts.
That is all while working people are experiencing the biggest squeeze on living standards since the 1950s. Tory Members want us to believe that railway workers are the problem. They want us to blame refugees, not Tory cuts, for the crisis in public services and why they are at breaking point. They want us to think trans women are a threat to cis women. This House should be clear: the problem is not railway workers, it is not refugees and it is not trans women. The problem is this Tory Government and the billionaires who back them.

Nigel Evans: Right. We have just over 20 minutes and there are 11 people standing to speak. If there is discipline, they will all get in; no discipline, and some people will not get in.

Steve Brine: That was interesting, but my constituents are not really interested in the greatest hits of the left bank on the Opposition Back Bench. They are not interested in the enemy within or talk of the 1970s and 1980s. They do not care much.
These strikes are a totally unnecessary indulgence on the part of the RMT; its actions will have very limited impact on its members, but will have a huge impact on my constituents. They will miss work, hospital appointments and precious time with their family and grandchildren, and it will add very unwelcome stress, as many hon. Members have said, to young people at exam time. Let us not kid ourselves: the strikes will affect all of us next week. Rail services will not be back to normal, my rail  company told me, until the week commencing 27 June—Monday week. It is worse than that: the RMT has a six-month mandate from this ballot. Will my constituents travel next week? Some will. Those who have to be in London who are just one hour from Winchester into Waterloo will probably drive, adding to the congestion, and with the eye-watering petrol costs at the moment. I agree with the several calls we have heard about suspending the congestion charge during this unnecessary strike.
That is not to say that there are no services from my constituency into London next week—there are. South Western Railway, which serves my constituency, will have just over 2,000 colleagues—guards, depot workers, drivers and so on—who will be swept up in the strike next week. The company briefed us this morning. I too have a good relationship with my local rail workers and my local rail company; the difference is that they do not pay me to have that relationship. The company has worked extremely hard to run a service next week. It is trying to match the key worker flows with the capacity. It has trained up managers with supply at the front to give my constituents a basic service between Southampton and Waterloo, albeit that the first train will not be until 7.30 am and the last train leaves at 5 pm, and my constituents in Micheldever and Shawford will be cut out entirely. I am also concerned about the concessions at railway stations, which, as many have said, have had a horrible time over the past few years.
So where to now? If the RMT wants to talk, then call off the strike. Let us take the heat out, because strikes will only up the heat. It is a dereliction of duty for the RMT to say that it does not talk to Tory Governments. It is a disgrace if that is what is being said. We have, “Do not travel next week”, messages going out to my constituents. Let us stop the strikes now, not on Sunday at the last minute, which will not avert travel disruption next week. This motion is very easy to support, because it supports my constituents.

Sally-Ann Hart: Railways have always been an integral part of our country’s economic and social fabric contributing immeasurably to national prosperity, progress and development.
The support delivered throughout the pandemic totalled £16 billion of emergency funding to ensure that the railways were kept running, but none the less there has undoubtedly been a significant drop in railway usage, which will perhaps not return fully to pre-pandemic levels as we once expected. Strikes caused by the RMT will not encourage the use of trains at a time when increasing passenger numbers is vital. The funding thankfully ensured that none of the 100,000 staff directly employed by the railways were put on furlough, as were many millions of people in other industries around the country. It is unfortunately not sustainable to continue that level of Government subsidy indefinitely, especially given the current financial difficulties and pressures faced by many people, families and businesses across the country, including in my constituency of beautiful Hastings and Rye.
On the serious question of rail strikes, fairness or the lack thereof must be an essential consideration. Having already subsidised the industry through the pandemic  to the sum of £16 billion, is it fair that taxpayers will now have their lives and livelihoods hit by these strikes? Strikes will disrupt British businesses, including the small and medium-sized enterprises that form the country’s economic background, and cost them a significant amount. For those that rely on tourism, as many do in my beautiful constituency, the impact will be all the greater, particularly on more disadvantaged people on low incomes—the very people Opposition Members profess to support. We know otherwise, because Opposition Members continue to encourage the RMT to play political games while the British public struggle.
We have already felt the impact of rail strikes on tourism industry businesses in 2017, with huge drops in visitor numbers as a direct result of those strikes. Reforming our railways now is key to making them fit for the future. Only through proper thought and consideration can fairness for both the taxpayer and those who work in the industry be achieved. The Government have my full support for their motion.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nigel Evans: There are eight Members standing to speak and we have 15 minutes. Do the sums, if you want to be friendly to colleagues.

Saqib Bhatti: The hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) spoke about chilling speeches from Government Members, and I have to say that I have found the speeches from those on the Opposition Benches incredibly chilling. I must be grateful to them, because every time they mention their support for this strike, they remind my constituents what could have been, had they the authority and were they in power.
When hard-working families are facing challenges with the cost of living, and when we are still recovering from the effects of the pandemic, the upcoming strikes will wreak havoc on my constituents. Thousands of my constituents commute to work by train. As a proportion, it is almost double the regional average due to our great connectivity to London, Birmingham, Warwick, Coventry and the surrounding areas. That is not to mention the knock-on effects to the rest of the public transport network and the road network.
Due to the strike action by the RMT, Chiltern Railways has announced that it will be forced to run a significantly reduced timetable, as will Avanti West Coast, London Northwestern and West Midlands trains, all of which run through my constituency. As has already been said, that means patients missing hospital appointments in Birmingham, family days out in London postponed because of the pandemic being put on hold once again and children, who had a hard time through the pandemic, sitting their GCSE and A-level exams with the added stress of getting to school on time. Hard-working families and hard-working people are being held to ransom by the unions and the Labour party.
What does the Opposition have to say to my constituents? The shadow Health Secretary said:
“if I were a member of the RMT…I would be voting to go on strike”.
The shadow Levelling Up Secretary said that she would be standing up with the striking railway workers who will bring our network to a standstill.
Why do the Opposition find it so hard to back hard-working British people and British families? No matter how hard they try and reinvent themselves, they have had more than £100 million in trade union donations over the past decade, and they remain beholden to the trade union barons holding our railways to ransom. That is on top of the news that a shadow Justice Minister said that a Labour Government would take us back into the EU. It is the same old cynical, opportunistic Labour party that backs unions and undermines the British people.

Paul Howell: First, like many of my colleagues and even more members of the public, I am deeply disappointed by how quickly this situation has arisen. The RMT has admitted that it is striking before it even knows the final plans for pay and conditions. How can anyone engage in constructive discussions with an organisation that has decided that pre-emptive strikes are the way to do it?
The timing of the strikes is particularly inappropriate, given the ongoing pressures on the UK’s economic recovery as a whole, particularly in the rail and travel industries, and gives no consideration to the fact that many in supply chain businesses had to rely on furlough at best and so did not get full wages for the year.
The RMT says there is never a good time for strikes, but it is its choice. Some times are clearly worse than others. Choosing to strike when students are sitting their A-levels and GCSEs is a particularly bad choice. When the first festivals are being held since the summer of 2019, it is incredibly inconsiderate to say the least. It is an attack on our young people trying to get on, and on so many of the population wanting to finally enjoy some respite from covid.
It is also disappointing that Labour cannot decide whether it supports the strikes. If it supports working people as it claims, how can it have difficulty deciding whether it supports the many in the population or the few in the RMT who are spoiling for an early fight? The strikes will also have an impact on levelling up. I have spent much of my time and energy since becoming an MP advocating for more investment in the rail sector, especially in the north, including Ferryhill station, the Leamside line and other such places.
I sincerely hope that the rail unions will reconsider their actions and that the Labour party will encourage them to do so. They will clearly impact the weakest in society most. It is so disappointing, but not surprising, that those on the Labour Benches are doing nothing to discourage their paymasters from these excessive and premature actions, which will frustrate levelling up, frustrate climate change improvements, frustrate students and frustrate people recovering from life after covid. Do they really want to be responsible for that?

Jack Brereton: This strike is a great threat to the ordinary working people who depend on rail services for work and especially to those now undertaking exams. The reason that this action is so unjustified and reckless is that we have already seen the rail sector on life support following the huge challenges faced during the pandemic. Services  have become increasingly dependent on taxpayer subsidies, and that trend started before covid. Between 2015-16 and 2019-20, the National Audit Office identified that the amount of Government funding for operating and maintaining the rail network doubled.
Now more than ever, it is important that we get people back using the railways so that services remain sustainable. At a time when rail operators are trying to encourage and convince people back on to the trains, we see the country being held to ransom by the unions and the Labour party. These reckless actions will harm ordinary families already struggling with the cost of living.
Wage levels in the sector are already far higher than in most others. The average rail worker now earns £44,000 a year, compared with an average salary of just over £27,000 in Stoke-on-Trent South. Many working practices in the sector are also stuck in the dark ages. The driver rulebook has changed little since the 1960s.

David Linden: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jack Brereton: No, I will not.
If anything is to come from the unions’ outrageous actions, I hope that they will influence the Government to finally overhaul those archaic working practices. Unfortunately, I feel that the culture in parts of the rail industry works against the necessary reforms and improvements, particularly in Network Rail, as we have experienced in Stoke-on-Trent in trying to deliver our transforming cities fund to improve local rail services.
The Government are focused on reinvesting in our railways, particularly on making them more accessible to communities across the country. For Stoke-on-Trent, which lost much of its local connectivity under the Beeching axe, improving local rail services through schemes such as the restoring your railway programme and the TCF is absolutely vital for levelling up, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) said.
Locally in north Staffordshire, I hope that the Government support our levelling-up bids for reopening Meir station and the Stoke-Leek line, which we are working on as part of the restoring your railway programme. But these reckless actions by the trade unions and the Labour party undermine all that and threaten to undermine the levelling up of this country and the investment that we are putting into the railways.

Ruth Edwards: As has been said, there is only one question that each and every Member of this House needs to ask themselves today: “Whose side am I on?” On the Conservative Benches, we are on the side of the British public and our constituents—workers trying to get to their jobs, the businesses that rely on them to be there, students travelling to sit their GCSE exams, and veterans wanting to mark Armed Forces Day. Over the pandemic, our constituents supported our railways with £600 from every family in the UK, because public money is not Government money; it is our constituents’ money.
It is now time for the rail unions to support our constituents by accepting that working patterns and demand for rail travel have changed. Our constituents  cannot continue to subsidise the status quo when passenger numbers are down by three quarters and 94% of commuters are not going back to commuting five days a week. The way we all work and the jobs we do are changing at a faster and faster pace. No sector is immune. We need to be honest with workers. We do not hide from modernising the railways because it is difficult; we are making huge investments in massive infrastructure projects, overhauling ticketing, putting more staff on platforms, and reopening closed routes.
Conservative Members of Parliament will vote to support our constituents today, but what will Labour Members do? Will they side with their constituents or with their union barons? I accept that it is hard for them to bite the hand that feeds them. The RMT donated nearly £250,000 to the Labour party in the last decade, so why would Labour Members vote to condemn rail strikes when they are on the union gravy train? Today, they have a chance to prove where their loyalties lie. Whose side are they on?

Julie Marson: I had intended to go through each element of the motion, but I do not have time, so I will focus on the second element, which is that we condemn
“the decision of the rail unions to hold three days of strikes”.
Precisely as my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards) said, I know whose side I am on.

David Linden: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Julie Marson: Absolutely not.
I am on the side of my hard-working constituents—employed and self-employed—going about their ordinary business on a day-to-day basis who want to go to work next week, who want to see friends and family next week, who want to go shopping next week, and who may want to go to urgent and important GP and hospital appointments next week. I am on their side, and when I speak to the residents of my commuting towns of Bishop’s Stortford, Sawbridgeworth, Hertford, Ware and St Margarets, which serves Stanstead Abbotts, I say, “I am on your side.” I do not want to see these strikes because I think they are profoundly unfair.
I do not believe that the unions are working in the best interests of the heroes who have been supporting our rail network and our rail industry over the last two years. I have written to my rail networks to thank them and their staff for everything they did during the pandemic. I would categorise this even more strongly: I support those workers, as well as all the other workers in my constituency, because they are hard-working people. They are not being served well by the union, and I would use that old adage of saying they are lions. They are lions, but they are led by donkeys.

Paul Bristow: Peterborough is a rail city, and it has been since the 1850s, when the Great Northern line opened going up to York. We have literally thousands of commuters who have moved to Peterborough because of our excellent housing and because of quality of life issues, who commute to London each and every day.
I do feel qualified to be able to talk about this issue. My father was a trade unionist for many years—he was the chair of Peterborough Unite—and like my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), I have an excellent relationship with railway staff in my constituency. They want reform in many ways, because the argument for reform is unarguable. Seven-day working practices are the norm elsewhere, and ticket office reform is obviously urgently needed. These are decent, hard-working people who want to serve the public. They are keen for reform, and they want a resolution to this dispute. They are not interested in communism or ideology; they just want to work. But the RMT—the union bosses themselves—do not want that, and neither does the Labour party.
I just want to refer to the excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly). He claimed to be on the side of those who are self-employed, on the side of those young people who want to sit their exams, on the side of those who want to go to hospital to access cancer treatments, and on the side of ordinary, everyday, hard-working people. I echo those sentiments entirely, because it is they whose side I am on—the hard-working people of Peterborough, be they people who need to get to work or the railway workers themselves. I am not on the side of these railway RMT bosses who put ideology before the interests of their members and ideology before the interests of the public, and the people who they pay for—and they are the Labour party MPs. This could be resolved tomorrow if the Labour party, the Labour leadership and Labour MPs appealed to RMT bosses to stop this strike. Will they do it?

Rob Butler: rose—

Simon Baynes: rose—

Nigel Evans: I apologise to Mr Baynes, and I call Mr Butler. We will take the clock off for you, but please resume your seat at 4.45 pm.

Rob Butler: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary on grasping the nettle not just of recognising the needs of a modern-day railway, but of acting to secure a sustainable, efficient modern-day railway. It was right that public money supported the railways during the pandemic, but it is surely also right that public money is now focused where it is most needed, not least in the NHS and education. Unlike the Opposition parties, the Conservatives recognise that there is not a bottomless pit of money—taxpayers’ money, I would add—and the answer to every question is not spend, spend, spend without thinking how we would manage costs or how we would improve productivity.
It was abundantly clear during the speech of the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), that the Labour party has absolutely no answers, because she simply refused to take questions from this side of the House. I know that her Front-Bench colleague, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), is about to speak, and I would ask him two very simple questions, so that my constituents are absolutely clear about the attitude of Labour Members. First, will they condemn the strikes—yes or no? A one-word answer should not be too difficult.
The shadow Secretary of State said that if Labour was in power, which I have to say is a thought that sends shivers down my spine, Labour would sit around the table with the unions. In that case, would Labour give in to all the unions’ demands, and if not, which ones would it reject? Just so we are absolutely clear, that is what she said she wanted to do. What would her stance be? My constituents want to know because the workers who need trains to get to their jobs next week, the pensioners who need to get to their hospital appointments next week and the schoolchildren who need to get to class next week cannot do so because of these totally unnecessary strikes. Will Labour condemn them?

Nigel Evans: Thank you very much. I call the shadow Minister.

Tan Dhesi: It is a pleasure to wind up the debate on behalf of Her Majesty’s Opposition, and I thank all those who have contributed to what I can definitely say has been a lively debate.
There is no doubt that our railways, and the committed workforce who run them, are of huge importance to our country, and we can all agree that the tireless efforts of our rail community in keeping the country running throughout the pandemic and beyond should be commended. That is precisely why the significance of the proposed strikes cannot be underplayed. But they can be avoided. It is good that we are debating this issue, and Conservative Members should take heed of the Labour party amendment to the motion.
The rail industry has arguably seen more turbulent times throughout the pandemic than most industries. Service and revenues stopped, funding structures changed, and the franchise system was ditched. No one is arguing for things to return to the way they were before, but instead we should build effective and collaborative change for passengers and the industry. Our rail network faces issues such as pay, job losses as a result of cuts, safety and maintenance, but instead the Government seem busy playing politics—mud slinging, and trying to start Twitter wars. They are spoiling for a fight. That is precisely what this debate is about, and precisely what the intended strikes are about, rather than doing what is in the best interests of the British people. But we can see through all that.
Blaming the Labour party for strike action that has been driven from Tory policies and mismanagement just will not fly. Perhaps Conservative Members need reminding who is in government, and who have been in government for the past 12-plus years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) said, if they put just half that energy into getting around a table with the unions to negotiate, we could have avoided the situation in which we find ourselves today.

Chris Loder: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the RMT has refused to come to speak to the Government? The only reason why the Secretary of State has received a letter from the general secretary of the RMT is that this very debate has been called in the House of Commons.

Tan Dhesi: I thank the hon. Gentleman, but the true fact of the matter is that the Secretary of State has not even tried. He has been missing in action. The unions,  including the RMT, have been asking for negotiations. Indeed, there have been discussions over the past couple of years, but the unions have been highlighting that many of their members have not received a pay increase for the past couple of years. As I said, they have not met since March. The Secretary of State needs to show leadership and hold an urgent meeting between Ministers, employers and the union. Sadly this behaviour is indicative of wider incompetence when it comes to managing our transport network.

Claire Coutinho: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the unions called a strike before they saw the finalised deals of a pay plan?

Tan Dhesi: As I highlighted, they have been in negotiations for the past couple of years. I am talking about wider incompetence, so let us take Transport for London and the Government’s failures in securing a long-term funding deal. That has left Transport for London in limbo, leaving it no choice but to make cuts to services in the face of a lack of Government support. Ministers are playing political games, where the only losers are the hard-working British people.
Why are the Government choosing to cut when they should be choosing to invest? Instead of delivering on a rolling programme of electrification, they are scrapping huge parts of HS2. I see the Rail Minister, the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), laughing from a sedentary position, but the Government scrapped the eastern leg of HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail to boot. Why are they choosing managed decline, when they should be choosing growth? Why are they cutting services, when they should be cutting fares, as many of our European neighbours are doing?
We could have a rail network with affordable, reliable services where more people want to travel by rail, helping us to address the climate emergency. Instead, the Government are focused on punishing rail passengers, punishing key workers on our railways, and presiding over the managed decline of our railways with £1 billion-worth of cuts imposed from the top. A decade-plus of Tory government has driven our transport systems into the ground, and the pandemic has catalysed that process to crisis point.
The Labour party will always stand to defend the rights of working people, the British people, who currently face a blistering cost of living crisis in the wake of a global pandemic. Workers are looking to the Government for answers, but the Government simply do not have a plan: no employment Bill, which has been promised for the last three years; and no progress on fire and rehire.
I have just been in a debate in Westminster Hall, which I managed to secure, on fire and rehire. Not one single Conservative Back Bencher managed to attend that debate. They simply do not—[Interruption.] They say they were here. Many other Members from the Labour party, the SNP and the Democratic Unionist party attended, but not a single Conservative Member from the Government Benches was there to support their Minister, because they do not believe in workers’ rights. They do not believe in supporting the British people who are going through this cost of living crisis.
Now, the Transport Secretary seems intent on jeopardising the right to strike at all. If his Department wants to move forward, I suggest that what it should be  doing is negotiating, ending the strikes next week, and giving our transport system the attention it rightly deserves.

Wendy Morton: Let me start by thanking right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to this very important debate, although I note the rather empty Opposition Benches and I contrast that with those on the Government side.
Given that we are just six days away from the biggest rail strikes in decades—strikes which will disrupt examinations, Armed Forces Day, NHS operations and huge cultural moments like the Glastonbury festival—it is perhaps not surprising that so many Members have been here to contribute today. I share the disappointment expressed by Members on the Government Benches that the RMT has called this industrial action. Strikes should be the last resort, not the first, and I truly believe that the RMT is thoughtlessly jumping the gun by striking when talks with the industry have only just begun.
Many people watching our proceedings today will be worried about next week. They will be worrying about how they will get to work, see their friends, or access vital public services. We have heard many examples of that from the Government Benches today. While we urge the trade unions to talk to us to find a solution, we are also planning for the worst.

Clive Efford: Will the Minister give way?

Wendy Morton: I want to make some progress first.
I assure the House that, together with industry, we are looking at how to keep vital freight, medicine and fuel running. We should be in no doubt, however, that if the strikes go ahead, they will cause huge disruption. That is precisely why the Government have tabled this motion today. We believe that it is important that we stand as one House—[Interruption.] I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder).

Chris Loder: I thank my hon. Friend, the excellent Rail Minister, for giving way. Does she agree, given that in 2018 the shadow Secretary of State stood on a platform and supported the RMT’s strikes for Northern Rail, that we will never see the Labour Front Bench condemn these strikes?

Wendy Morton: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, but this evening the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) and her colleagues have the opportunity to stand with Members on this side of the House and support the motion. We believe that it is important we stand as one House and condemn the unions for their reckless and irresponsible decision to grind our network to a halt next week.
I really do hope that the Opposition will finally put aside their funding interests to vote with us today. I do not think that our constituents will accept being told that their lives and jobs are being disrupted because Labour has sided with a militant group of union leaders  who belong in the 1970s—leaders such as Mick Lynch, who admitted that this strike action would make the cost of living situation worse for people and who refused to rule out working towards a general strike; and leaders such as RMT deputy boss Eddie Dempsey, who admitted that the unions were striking before even knowing the final plans for pay and conditions.
Just yesterday, we saw more rail unions moving toward strike action, this time cynically timing their walkout to coincide with the Commonwealth games. That will not just impact on the sport but will put at risk the legacy the games are looking to create in the west midlands. If Opposition Members deplore those actions as much as I do, they must vote to condemn the unions.
As a result of the pandemic, our railways are facing an existential crisis. Many people can now choose to work from home or just to travel into the office a few days a week. Passenger journeys in recent months are still a fifth lower than in the equivalent period in 2019 and it is no exaggeration to say that the industry is now facing the biggest challenge in its 200-year history. The Government have earmarked more than £16 billion of funding for passenger services since the start of the pandemic to keep the railways running and to protect jobs. That is the equivalent of nearly £600 per household. That just cannot continue, so our railways need to change.
The Government are doing our bit. We are simplifying the railways under the Great British Railways brand and ending franchising. We are investing in large infrastructures such as HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail. We are overhauling ticketing and offering passengers discounts and promotions such as the hugely popular Great British rail sale. We are addressing historic issues in the railways through the Williams-Shapps plan for rail, delivering more punctual and reliable services and tackling franchising. The time to act on this is now and we need railway employees to work alongside us in order to deliver a network fit for the 21st century—

Louise Haigh: Then talk to them!

Wendy Morton: There is one thing on which I want to be really clear, because I can hear the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley chuntering from the Front Bench. Let me be absolutely clear that when we talk about industry talks, the Government are not the employer here. That is a fundamental thing that Opposition Members need to remember. We cannot intervene between the rail companies and the unions. Industry is offering daily talks to the unions and we absolutely encourage the unions to stay at the negotiating table and call off these strikes.
The unions must talk to the employers. Getting stuck in endless disputes will not solve anything, nor will it bring back the passengers the railway so badly needs—quite the opposite. The only solution is for everyone who takes pride in the railway to come together and agree a new way forward. Outdated working practices must end. It is time for the railways to modernise.
If we get this right, we can create a future in which our railways thrive, passenger numbers grow and Britain’s economy rockets as we better connect up our towns, cities, communities and people. The prize is huge—Labour Members might not agree or like me saying this—but the consequences of these strikes will be severe: passengers may disappear for good, businesses will be damaged  and lives will be disrupted. It is time for the Labour party to get off the fence and stop defending the union bosses who fund their political activities. The Opposition might not like this, but it is time for us to put working people first. I commend the motion to the House.
Amendment proposed: to leave out from “House” to end and add
“does not want the national rail strikes to go ahead; and therefore urgently calls upon the Government, operators, network rail and the union to get around the table and resolve the issues on pay and cuts to safety staff to avert industrial action.”—(Mr Dhesi.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.

The House divided: Ayes 174, Noes 286.
Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put.
The House proceeded to a Division.

David Linden: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Standing Orders of the House state that a Member’s vote should follow their voice. No doubt people will have noted that the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) shouted “No.” Would he be in breach of the Standing Orders if he did not vote no?

Nigel Evans: I do not know who shouted “Aye” and who shouted “No,” but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the vote should follow the voice.

The House having divided: Ayes 293, Noes 15.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House recognises the vital role of the railways in supporting people and businesses across the UK every day; condemns the decision of the rail unions to hold three days of strikes; believes those strikes will adversely affect students taking examinations, have an unacceptable effect on working people and a negative effect on the economy; and calls on the rail unions to reconsider their strike action and continue discussions with the industry.

Claire Coutinho: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think the whole House would agree about the importance of declaring our financial interests. Will you guide the House on whether Members should have declared that the RMT had funded them individually, their constituency party or their general election campaign in 2019 before speaking in the debate?

Nigel Evans: I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. It is not up to the Chair to determine whether Members should or should not declare any registrable interest. It is up to each individual Member to do so. Members should therefore reflect on what their circumstances are. Should anybody believe that another Member has not followed the guidelines, of course they always have open recourse to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards to make complaints.

Chris Stephens: Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. During the debate, a number of Government Members quoted other Members’ entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Will you confirm that it was in order for hon. Members to declare those interests?

Nigel Evans: If I have understood the point of order correctly, it is about Members who have stood up and declared on both sides of the Chamber.

Chris Stephens: indicated assent.

Nigel Evans: Then yes, those who have done so are absolutely in order.

Genetic Technology  (Precision Breeding) Bill

Second Reading

George Eustice: I beg to move, that the Bill be now read a Second time.
The UK is home to some of the world’s best agricultural research facilities. For some 70 years, plant breeders have used chemical and radiation treatments to generate random mutations in genes, in the hope that these might provide traits that are useful for plant breeding. For decades we have had F1—filial 1—hybrid breeding techniques, which were designed to create far greater genetic consistency in plant varieties that are grown commercially.
Precision breeding techniques such as gene editing are really a natural evolution of conventional approaches to plant breeding. They are simply a modern way of creating more targeted and predictable changes to DNA within a species than would have been possible using induced mutagenesis or natural breeding. They result in nothing that could not occur through natural breeding processes. In that sense, precision breeding techniques are distinct from genetic modification, which can involve moving genes across species boundaries. It is the recognition of this difference that is the reason for this Bill today.
In 2018, the European Court of Justice ruled that all gene-edited organisms should be legally regulated as genetically modified organisms. That has hampered our ability to take advantage of precision breeding techniques and of the clear opportunity to help the environment and food producers.
The UK Government disagreed with that 2018 judgment from the perspective of science. Now that we are outside the European Union we are free to consider what a consistent, coherent and science-based policy looks like. What we really need to achieve as we address today’s challenges is a fusion of the traditional principles of good farm husbandry with some of the best technology available to us in the 21st century.

Caroline Lucas: The Secretary of State keeps using this language about precision breeding, but he will know that that is neither a specific technology nor a scientific principle. It relies on the creation of a hypothetical class of GMOs that could have occurred naturally. He will know that there is opposition to that definition from everyone from the environmental non-governmental organisations right through to the Nuffield Council on Bioethics and to the Roslin Institute. Given that level of disagreement about the very principles of how he is framing this Bill, will he take it away and look at it again?

George Eustice: We have considered these matters in great depth. We ran a consultation. The overwhelming view of scientists are that these precision-breeding techniques, which do not achieve or do anything that could not be achieved through natural breeding processes, are not in fact GMOs. That is our view. That is why we are bringing this Bill forward today. As the hon. Lady knows, there will no doubt be a debate about these matters in both Houses as the Bill progresses.
Precision breeding techniques give us the ability to produce plant varieties with particular traits far more efficiently than was ever possible with conventional breeding. This opens up huge opportunities for our farmers and growers to produce nutritious food with a lower environmental impact.
Precision breeding techniques can improve crop resistance to diseases, reduce the need for pesticides, increase crop yields, improve resistance to climate change, promote drought resistance and reduce the need for fertilisers.

Neil Hudson: I do not believe that people need to fear this technology. This is not about creating Frankenstein’s monster or introducing DNA from another species. From developing disease resistant crops to bird flu resistance in poultry to PRRS—porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome —resistance in pigs, there are significant benefits, including: for food security; for the environment; and importantly, for animal health and welfare. Ultimately, there are also significant benefits for public health, as we are reducing medicines and therefore tackling things such as antimicrobial resistance. Does the Secretary of State agree that, ultimately, this can be a win, win, win for food security, animals and people?

George Eustice: My hon. Friend, who knows a great deal about animal welfare issues in particular, raises some very important points. He will know that livestock breeders have long selected traits for polled cattle, for instance, so that they can avoid the need for mutations such as dehorning. It is also the case, as he says, that these new techniques offer the potential for us to breed poultry that is naturally resistant to avian flu, which is a major challenge, and some other issues that I will come on to.

Tracey Crouch: As the Secretary of State knows, I have long campaigned against the badger culls, so the idea that gene editing may improve disease resistance in livestock is something that I find really interesting and could be, as my hon. Friend put it, a win, win. However, the Secretary of State will also be very well aware that, with the Department’s view that this could drive animals to faster growth and higher yields, there is significant concern from animal welfare charities that this would exacerbate the severe welfare problems that have arisen through selective breeding for increased productivity. Can he give some reassurances to those animal welfare charities that we are not seeking to produce more eggs, bigger eggs, or in any way harming breeding animals?

George Eustice: My hon. Friend raises an important point. There is already some work going on to breed natural resistance and to select, for instance, dairy cattle that have a higher level of resistance to bovine tuberculosis, and these techniques will allow that to be progressed far faster.
On my hon. Friend’s wider point, we address that in the Bill, and I was going to come on to it. I have listened carefully to organisations such as Compassion in World Farming; that point was highlighted to me some years ago by its head of policy, Peter Stevenson. That is why we have put in some very specific safeguards to protect animal welfare, so that there can be an assessment before any authorisation is allowed. We do not want to  have a situation where there could be more lameness in poultry, for instance, or other animal welfare concerns. There will be a dedicated committee to assess that.

Margaret Ferrier: Has the Secretary of State considered the impact that this Bill might have on public trust? People might be suspicious of GE food products. For those who are worried, what reassurance can be provided that genome editing will only be used where there are no other less invasive alternatives available?

George Eustice: I think consumers want to see fewer pesticides in their food, and technologies such as this open the door for us to achieve that. As part of the notification process that I will come on to describe, we will ensure that there is transparency and that any seed that is marketed is listed in a transparent way. The Food Standards Agency will also conduct a very thorough and comprehensive assessment of any food safety issues. I think that will give people the reassurance they need.
Returning to some other examples of crops, UK Research and Innovation funded a study that has identified promising sources of genetic resistance to virus yellows in sugar beet, a group of viruses that can cause severe yield losses of up to 50% and are at the heart of the controversy around the use of neonicotinoids in sugar beet. Introducing resistance to virus yellows will reduce the need for pesticides, boost our food security and reduce costs to our sugar beet producers.
With food security high on the agenda, we also have the ability to develop wheat that is more resilient to climate change, helping successfully to grow a crop that 2.5 billion people are dependent on globally. Researchers at the John Innes Centre in Norwich have used gene editing techniques to identify a key gene in wheat that can be used to introduce traits such as heat resilience, while maintaining high yields.
These technologies also have potential to improve the health and welfare of animals, as some of my hon. Friends have mentioned. Research in farmed animals is already leading to the development of animals that have increased resistance to some devastating diseases. For instance, the Roslin Institute and Genus have developed gene-edited pigs with natural resistance to porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome, a disease that causes mortality and major welfare issues in pig populations globally.
I turn now to the contents of the Bill. It will focus on four key areas. First, we will remove precision-bred plants and animals from the regulatory requirements applicable to the environmental release and marketing of genetically modified organisms. That will remove the necessity of adhering to the onerous regulations imposed by the European Union for plants and animals that could also have been produced through traditional breeding. The Bill does that in part 1.

Caroline Lucas: The Secretary of State will know that section 20 of the Environment Act 2021 requires him to be able to affirm that this Bill does not weaken any existing environmental protections. Given that he has more or less just said that it precisely does, because it will weaken the EU legislation that we were following and will erode the existing regulatory system, how can he then sign section 20 in good faith?

George Eustice: As I have set out, as a point of science, the scientific community and the UK Government rejected the legal conclusion of the European Court of Justice. It is important to point out that that was based on an interpretation of the clauses in EU regulations, rather than on any coherent assessment of the scientific evidence. We will assess the scientific evidence, and it is on that basis that we are bringing the Bill forward.
The hon. Lady asks whether I can be confident that this will not undermine the environment, and I can. Indeed, I am confident that it will lead to a reduction in the use of pesticides, which is a key objective that she will share with Conservative Members. It could also lead to a reduction in the use of synthetic fertilisers—currently the primary contributor to greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector.

Andrew Bridgen: What restrictions are there around the world on the agricultural products of this technology? Does the Secretary of State think that in the very near future, when the European Union appreciates the benefits that this can bring to agriculture, it may well change its mind on it?

George Eustice: My hon. Friend raises an important point. In fact, I was at the agrifood council when the European Court of Justice judgment came in 2018. Even countries that had some scepticism about genetically modified foods, such as Germany and France, were very concerned about that judgment. It is also the case, as he may well know, that the European Union itself is now consulting on a change to its own laws. The EU will be some years behind us, but it recognises that the ECJ judgment in 2018 was scientifically flawed. He asked what other countries around the world do. The vast majority of serious agricultural producers with the scientific expertise to assess these things treat gene editing and these precision breeding techniques as being distinct from genetically modified organisms.
Clause 1 of part 1 describes what a precision-bred organism is. Clause 2 establishes the scope of what is considered a plant and an animal for the purposes of the Bill. Part 2 introduces two simpler notification systems.

Ben Lake: On definitions, the Secretary of State may be aware that the British Veterinary Association has expressed some concern that perhaps the definitions have been broadened somewhat in the Bill—in particular, that organisms or techniques that would insert exogenous genetic material could be allowed under those definitions. Can he confirm whether that is indeed the case?

George Eustice: The Bill defines this quite tightly and lists what classes of animals are to be included. On some of these very specific technical issues, I am sure that hon. Members who have read clauses 1 and 2 will see that there are quite a lot of different processes, which we will all have to make sure that we learn a lot more about as the Bill progresses. I am sure that this will be discussed in great detail.

Roger Gale: There is no doubt that a lot of the Bill is potentially of huge advantage, particularly in terms of animal welfare. However, my  right hon. Friend will be aware that concerns have been expressed that people should at least have the right to know what they are buying. Does he have any comments to make about food labelling in this respect?

George Eustice: There will be transparency in the sense that any authorised product will be listed. No marketing authorisation will be granted for the sale of any food unless it has been properly assessed. However, it is not currently our intention to have some kind of labelling requirement specifically for food, because a loaf of bread might have some of these crops going into it and others produced through other techniques. We do not currently, for instance, require people to label that a crop has been produced using an F1 hybrid technique such as an open pollination. That is the comparison that I would draw my right hon. Friend’s mind to.
Part 2 introduces two simpler notification systems—one for research and one for marketing purposes. Developers will have to submit information to DEFRA that will be published on a public register, and this will support consumer transparency. Clause 3 sets out the conditions under which a person may release a precision-bred organism in England. Clauses 4 and 5 set out the notification requirements for the release and marketing of a precision-bred organism. Clause 6 describes the application process for obtaining a precision-bred confirmation. This will ensure that each precision-bred organism is assessed on a case-by-case basis. Clause 7 sets out the requirement for there to be a report of the advisory committee, with further provisions in clauses 8 and 9 regarding the precision-bred confirmation and its revocation if necessary.
The Bill will not compromise animal welfare standards. As I said, it establishes a regulatory system to safeguard the welfare of precision-bred animals. This system is described in clauses 10 to 15. Clause 10 establishes that precision-bred animals will need to be authorised before they can be marketed. Clause 11 describes the application process. Clause 12 describes the involvement of an animal welfare advisory body. Clause 14 makes provision for regulations requiring information on the health and welfare of these animals once they have been placed on the market.
Finally, the Bill also makes provision to ensure that there will be no compromise whatever on food safety and that there will be a comprehensive assessment of the safety of any products placed on the market that result from precision-bred organisms.

Margaret Ferrier: Will the Secretary of State give way?

George Eustice: I will give way one more time, and then I will conclude.

Margaret Ferrier: I am keen to understand something. Although the territorial extent of the Bill’s provisions is rather limited, what consultation did the UK Government have with their Scottish counterparts? Scotland remains opposed to GE food products being sold there, but legally cannot prohibit it.

George Eustice: This is a devolved matter, as the hon. Lady says. The Scottish Government have taken a particular position, which is broadly that if the European Union changed its law, Scotland would change its law at that  time, but not before, and it would appear that the Scottish Government do not want to move early on that. Of course, many of the leading international research institutes, such as the Roslin Institute and James Hutton, are world leaders in these technologies. They will probably be acutely disappointed if the Scottish Government do not take this opportunity to lead the world, rather than waiting and following the European Union.
Finally, part 3 of the Bill, in relation to an assessment of food safety, sets out the powers for the regulation of food and feed derived from precision-bred organisms and includes a new regulatory framework governing the placing on the market of these products, a public register and a monitoring and inspection regime.
In conclusion, it is more than 30 years since the current GMO legislation was passed. In that time, unnecessary and unscientific barriers imposed by the European Union have stalled the development of the agritech industry in the United Kingdom. Our legislation has not kept pace with our increased understanding of the safety and benefits of technologies such as gene editing. By removing these barriers, we will enable investment in these technologies, which have the potential to tackle some of the great challenges faced by the United Kingdom and the world today when it comes to producing food in an environmentally sustainable way. I therefore commend this Bill to the House.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Before I call the spokesperson for the Opposition, I note that we do not have very much time. It is likely I will have to put on a time limit of about four minutes. I simply issue that warning now so that people can take out six or seven pages of their prepared speeches.

Daniel Zeichner: This Bill comes in a week when food, how we produce it and what it does to us and how food production impacts our planet have been at the forefront of public debate. The Bill was an opportunity to tackle one of the great issues of our time, but instead of rising to that challenge, I am afraid that the Government have flunked it. There was a minimalist response on Monday, when failing to set out a proper food strategy for the future, and a minimalist response today on setting up the right structures to enable innovation to flourish. That is disappointing, but perhaps not surprising. These issues require a long-term view, and an understanding and appreciation of the wider public good. This Government are now reduced to slogans designed to get the Prime Minister to the end of next week. The country deserves better, and many on the Government Benches know that.
Let me set out the position on this side of the House on an issue of significance for the future. Let me start by thanking the many serious people from learned societies and institutions who have done the thinking and spent time briefing me and my team as we grapple with some very big issues. As an example, I wave the weighty report from the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, “Genome editing and farmed animal breeding”, which runs to many hundreds of pages. I can recommend it to Members—it is actually a very good read. Unlike this Bill, which takes the narrowest possible approach, it stood  back and asked the bigger questions about our food system, our treatment of animals, where traditional selective breeding has brought us, how we might approach novel foods, and the great changes that we may see in just a few years. The Royal Society criticises focusing narrowly on just one technology and argues for an outcomes-based approach.
There was a big opportunity, but a weak and disintegrating Government could not take it. I understand that, so I turn to the proposals that we have before us, which are a start. For reasons that I will explain, however, they risk having the opposite effect from those intended. Unless public and investor confidence is maintained, research will stall and opportunities will be squandered. Although we will support the Bill’s progress today, we want to see it significantly strengthened and we will propose an array of amendments in Committee, which I genuinely hope the Government will consider carefully.
The Opposition start from a clear principle: we are pro-science and pro-innovation. We want to find ways to maintain and improve the efficiency, safety and security of our food system while addressing the environmental and health damage that the modern food system has caused. That is the challenge that Henry Dimbleby set out in his national food plan, which the Government were unable to meet in their proposals this week.
With that challenge, there is an opportunity for the UK to create a world-leading regulatory framework that others will follow, but sadly this Bill is a rushed job—too thin on detail. With that lack of detail comes a risk, because the public need assurance that those new technologies are being used for the public good, not just for narrow commercial advantage. We have no doubt about the possible benefits. We understand the pressures that are put on farmers when we rightly say, as has been cited, that they cannot use neonicotinoids because of the harm they cause to pollinators. If gene editing can be used to safely ward off virus yellows in sugar beet, that is a definite good that we want to see proceed as quickly as possible.

Andrew Bridgen: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the public good and commercial advantage are mutually exclusive?

Daniel Zeichner: Surely not, but they are not always the same thing, and that is the point.
We do not want a gene edit to modify an animal to allow it to tolerate more cramped conditions; we want a regulatory system that ensures that those technologies are used for the right purposes. We recognise that there will be people who are not convinced that it is right to intervene in these new ways, and who are not convinced that it is right for them or wider society, but we believe that if the system is regulated in the right way, most people can be reassured.
Let us not forget that Labour is the party of food safety. We established the Food Standards Agency, which will play a vital role in giving confidence to the public. Whatever it says and does, however, different approaches to food production must be respected with proper safeguards for organic production, for example, and for those who do not wish to go down these new routes. Their rights matter too.
We fully understand that laws designed almost 30 years ago for genetically modified products do not reflect advances in understanding and technology. We also see that many countries are recognising that gene editing should be treated differently. While we understand that, we must also recognise the importance of that distinction being drafted clearly and transparently, as has already been touched on.
The public will want to be assured that allowing the editing of genes in one organism does not also allow the introduction of genes from another organism. I hope that the Secretary of State can clearly confirm that today, because it is very important. Our reading of those complicated definitions, and the advice that we are being given, suggests that that subject is not entirely clear. I hope it can be explored in Committee.
We want our scientists to succeed and use their skills for good here in the UK. We know that over the years, traditional crop development and innovation has brought us all significant gains, but as we enter this new territory we need that strong regulatory framework to make sure that we get it right. As it stands, we are not convinced that the Bill provides that. It needs strengthening.
As it stands, far too much is being left to secondary legislation. We understand why that is always attractive to Government; it largely means, “Trust us.” As we all know, what is brought forward is unamendable and, almost without exception, it is always carried. It is a blank cheque, and on an issue that so relies on trust and public acceptance, that is not a good starting point.
We need more detail in the Bill, not least because this Bill covers both plants and animals, which makes this legislation much more complicated and difficult. In the notices accompanying the Bill, the Government have said they will only introduce new measures for animals after those for plants and after extensive consultation on the right regulatory framework for animals had been established. So far as we can see, there is nothing in this Bill to make that happen. Frankly, it is the wrong way around: sort out the preferred regulatory framework first, then put it into law.
As we have already heard, animal welfare organisations are rightly concerned. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals says in its brief that it is “incredibly concerned”. Compassion in World Farming has joined 20 other animal welfare organisations, including the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation, in raising similarly strong concerns. Their points are powerful, and Labour will require much stronger tests on animal welfare impacts.
As I suggested earlier, to get this legislation right the Government must provide a proper mechanism to balance the risks and manage trade-offs. Just saying that there is no risk is not that mechanism. In this country, we have always been pretty good at regulation. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority is a highly regarded model for dealing with some of these very complicated issues, and a model the Government would do well to consider.
The case for having a strong regulatory framework is not just a matter of giving confidence to the public; that public confidence in turn gives scientists and businesses the confidence to invest here in the UK and sets the  example for others to follow. That will be important as many of our trading partners go down the same route. How much better to have something worth copying, giving us first-mover advantage, but also settling some of those tricky trade issues if we end up with different rules.
As part of that framework, we need to recognise that the modern consumer wants and expects good information. Research carried out by the Food Standards Agency and others has clearly found that, while consumers support genetically edited foods having a different regulatory system from that for genetically modified foods, they want clear labelling and effective regulation of gene-edited products. Just telling them that they need not worry because there is no difference just does not cut it in the modern world.
Clear labelling is the way to help deal with another potentially difficult issue, which is the legitimately held views of different Administrations within the United Kingdom. I think it is fair to say—I suspect we will be hearing this in a minute—that the devolved Administrations are not happy with the way this has been handled so far, and I suggest that the Government should tread carefully. Clear labelling is a sensible way forward.
In conclusion, we are in no doubt that gene editing could bring real gains in improving environmental sustainability and reducing food insecurity. The world faces huge global challenges, and although much can be done by reforming global food systems, science and technology used for public good can be a huge boon. We need a regulatory framework that prioritises that. At the moment, as ever with this Government, the approach is to leave it to the market, and that risks repeating the mistakes of the past.
These are big and important issues. They will be explored in much greater depth in Committee and the evidence sessions, and the Opposition look forward to working with the Government to improve the legislation and create the strong regulatory framework that is needed, but currently lacking.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. We have to start with an immediate time limit of four minutes.

Katherine Fletcher: I am speaking today in full support of the Bill, precision breeding and our outstanding scientists, who are looking to this House to unlock barriers to solving many of the most important problems facing us on earth. I want to see this Bill unleash their capability and energy on those problems, and I hope to be supporting the Bill throughout the whole of its passage.
Let me explain why I stand up with this bouncy enthusiasm. To take the House back to the 1990s, when I was young and thin, I was honoured to be at the Nottingham University life sciences department doing a biology degree. If the House will bear with me, I have a little practical knowledge of DNA editing techniques, as my undergraduate paper was using transgenic Caenorhabditis elegans as a biological monitor for freshwater sediment toxicity.

Neil Hudson: Hear, hear!

Katherine Fletcher: Quite. That is a mouthful, but the key here is “transgenic”. We were putting a gene from Escherichia coli—E. coli—into an itty-bitty nematode worm, an animal, and making a cross-species C. elegans. Those little guys were effectively harnessing natural stress repair mechanisms to produce something that we could measure easily.
I was a scientist; I was fascinated by that, but it did not always sit brilliantly with me, and the mechanisms that were used to produce that transgenic environment were at best embryonic and new. It was effectively taking DNA material in vectors such as plasmid, and pebbledashing a target DNA area. We did not know where it was going to land, and we had a lot of wastage where bits of DNA were going in the wrong place. That is not what the Bill is about, and I look forward to going into that in more detail.

Neil Hudson: We have heard concerns that people feel that an exogenous species of DNA would be coming in. Does my hon. Friend agree that this technology is not about that? This is not about an external species coming in, and perhaps the Bill could be tightened up by clarifying that, which would appease some of people’s potential fears.

Katherine Fletcher: Yes. If the Bill contained a way of opening up the transgenic debate, be that in plants or animals, it would not enjoy my support.
While I have put on a lot of weight since the mid-1990s, science has also massively moved on. In response to the intervention by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), this is a bit like comparing a 1997 diesel car with modern zero-emissions vehicles. Yes, they both have wheels, go along in a straight line and are called cars, but the two things are completely different. The British public were right to be cautious at the time, but let us explain why this is different. We now know the genome sequences of other target species and plants, and we have exact tools that are effectively like clever genetic snippers that will go along a genome and only cut in the exact place. There is confidence and science behind that point. We then insert something that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson) highlighted, comes from the same species. If we have wheat that does not taste nice but is good at growing in dry conditions, why can we not give it that dry condition gene, so that it tastes nice and is nutritious and can help feed the third world? There are scientists chomping at the bit to have a go at that—I really cannot wait.
As part of my undergraduate degree I went to Rothamsted and saw the scale that has to be put in place for traditional breeding techniques—think fields and fields and fields. Variant 1 has been crossed with variant 2 in a modern way, but it then needs to be tested, because in traditional breeding techniques we basically take the whole genome, throw it up in the air and ask nature to pick one variant out of two. That means we are looking at multiple generations to try to keep the tasty wheat, as well as the dry, coarse wheat. This is a fantastic opportunity to use fewer resources while doing that research, and to use fewer resources from the environment.
Let me highlight some of the extremely exciting opportunities that I have pulled out of the literature: disease-resistant wheat that needs less pesticide, as  mentioned by the Secretary of State; tomatoes with a little extra vitamin D; wheat with reduced asparagine to ensure that people are not exposed to carcinogens, especially if, like me, they cannot cook properly and always burn everything; or chickpeas with high protein levels that help those who are making an environmental choice by being vegan or vegetarian. The possibilities for health, climate, environment, farming and our planet are as endless as the natural variation within species that had Darwin so fascinated. We must do this, and I totally support the Bill.

Deidre Brock: The regulation of genetically modified foods is a devolved issue. It is important to emphasise that at the start because, as in a growing number of policy areas, the UK Government pay only lip service at best to the powers exercised in the Scottish Parliament, while at the same time running roughshod over devolution with their post-Brexit deregulatory agenda.
Although the intended scope of the Bill may be England only, it is explicit that it will have significant impacts on devolved areas. The devolved Administrations were, however, only informed of this just one day before the Bill was introduced, in a letter from the Environment Secretary encouraging them to adopt the Bill’s principles. A UK-wide approach can, of course, sometimes be desirable, but this invite creates an illusion of collaboration and choice when in fact DEFRA is acting unilaterally once again. Frankly, it smacks of contempt for our democratically elected Government.
If the Scottish Parliament refused to allow gene-edited crops to be planted in Scotland, we would still be prevented from stopping GMO products from being sold in our shops under the devolution-violating United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. This is exactly the kind of scenario the SNP warned against when the Tories forced that legislation through this place. I understand that DEFRA officials have now suggested that the Department discuss the UK Government’s plans to diverge from the common UK-wide GM regulatory regimes. Well, thanks very much, I am sure, but any discussions of that nature should have taken place prior to the introduction of the Bill so that potential policy divergence could be properly considered. The fact that they have not is deeply regrettable and unacceptable.
The SNP is committed to ensuring that Scotland operates to the highest environmental standards, and that we protect and enhance the strength of Scottish agriculture and food production. If we end up with unwanted gene-edited products in Scotland, diverging standards with the EU could cause further damage to our sales, risking damage to Scotland’s reputation for high-quality food and drink.

Katherine Fletcher: The way the hon. Lady is talking about gene editing implies that one can tell the difference. It brings in variant genes from the same species. It is literally scientifically impossible to identify a gene-edited product if it is done properly.

Deidre Brock: I accept the hon. Lady’s experience in this area, but there are many scientists who would differ from that opinion.

Robert Goodwill: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Deidre Brock: I am going to make progress.
As previously, where the EU offers new scientific advice and moves to change legislative frameworks, the Scottish Government consider the implications for Scotland and seek to stay closely aligned with that approach where practicable. Holyrood passed the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021 before Brexit, committing the Scottish Government to alignment with EU standards and regulations. In keeping with that, we are closely monitoring the EU, including its public consultation which I believe is continuing at the moment, as it reviews its policy on certain new genomic techniques.

Andrew Bridgen: Does the hon. Lady not appreciate that farmers are also businesspeople and that a farmer will not grow something that the consumer does not want to buy? Does she insult the intelligence of Scottish farmers by suggesting that they will grow crops nobody wants to buy?

Deidre Brock: This is about the devolved responsibilities of the Scottish Government and our intention to stay aligned with EU regulations, as we have committed to in the 2021 continuity Act. We are in constant discussions with farmers and will continue to be.
Surely it would be practical for the UK Government to follow the approach of monitoring the EU and its ongoing public consultation as it reviews this policy, ensuring alignment and avoiding divergence that could further threaten trade with our largest trading partner. As the European Commission’s formal policy announcement is expected in the first half of 2023, the wait would not greatly undermine the UK’s competitive edge but would ensure minimal trade disruption. The UK economy suffered a 4% reduction in GDP, according the Office for Budget Responsibility, thanks to a hard Tory Brexit. The last thing Scotland needs is further disruption to EU trade.
It is worth noting, too, that the EU’s 2021 study into gene editing and new genetic technologies highlighted that research into animals and micro-organisms is “still limited or lacking”, especially when it comes to safety. The SNP would advise the UK Government to return to the precautionary principle in the deployment of such new technologies, especially those developing produce for human consumption.
There is no doubt that these issues are complex and emotive, with a variety of views across science, industry and other stakeholders. The SNP does not oppose further research in this area and it acknowledges the work of the James Hutton Institute, the Roslin Institute and other Scottish scientists and researchers. The more empirical data available in this area, the better we can understand exactly the effects in crops and animals, and in genetically modified organisms. However, the SNP will always listen to the concerns of the public and producers and take them into consideration in agricultural matters or in scientific development. Indeed, DEFRA’s own consultation last year found that 88% of individuals and 64% of businesses supported continuing to regulate such organisms as GMOs. The strength and range of opposition to the use of gene editing should give us pause to reflect.

David Duguid: The hon. Lady is making a lot of points about how this is, of course, a devolved area, but does she therefore disagree with the president of NFU Scotland, Martin Kennedy, when he says that precision breeding techniques such as gene editing, led by scientific expertise available in Scotland, have considerable potential to deliver benefits for food, nutrition, agriculture, biodiversity and climate change?

Deidre Brock: I thought I had made myself fairly clear. We are waiting for the EU review of this technology to take place, then we will weigh it up carefully and decide whether to continue down that route ourselves. The trouble with farmers and the NFUS at the moment is that they are so desperate to find something in place of the trade they have lost as a result of Brexit that they have seized on this. I think that the precautionary principle should always apply with new technologies of this sort.

Robert Goodwill: rose—

Deidre Brock: I will keep going for a bit.
Let me give the view of some of the organisations that have listed their concerns. The view of the umbrella group of individuals and organisations, GM Freeze, is that the proposed new approach would take away scrutiny and transparency, and as these are patented technologies, it is concerned that big business will be handed greater leverage and control over what we eat. The Soil Association warns that in the absence of a proper governance framework, gene editing is likely to be driven by industry interests. The question has to be asked: without rigorous democratic forms of governance in this area, how can we stop monopolies forming and companies acting in the service of profit rather the public interest? I hope very much that we will hear that question answered as the Bill progresses and, as the Minister is nodding, perhaps even this afternoon.
Deregulating GE products also loosens the strict controls that allow modified plants and animals to be traced with ease, making the impact on the general animal and plant population harder to track and assess. There are also fears that deregulated gene editing risks displacing high-welfare agro-ecological farming systems such as organic farming. If there is no tracing or labelling, the future of organic and other non-GM farming is threatened. Citizens deserve to know how their food has been produced; that goes to the very heart of food sovereignty.

Robert Goodwill: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. Is she aware that the last generation of new varieties were often produced using induced mutation, gamma radiation or chemicals such as colchicine, which was equivalent to smashing up DNA with a sledgehammer rather than this keyhole surgery? Varieties such as Golden Promise, which can be grown organically in Scotland and go into the majority of Scotch whisky, have been produced in that way and she has not raised any concerns about them.

Deidre Brock: As I say, we are prepared to consider the technology as things progress but we are waiting on the EU, because the EU has the strictest standards in the world—[Interruption.] The EU has some of the  strictest standards in the world, and if it is content after it has examined this process and had its consultation, that is certainly something we are prepared to consider.
Ministers insist that no changes should be made to the regulation of animals under the GMO regime until a regulatory system is developed to safeguard animal welfare. However, as has been mentioned, a coalition of 21 of the UK’s leading animal protection organisations has called those safeguards
“poorly defined and largely inadequate”.
Among multiple other concerns, the group cites increased risk of regarding animals as things that can just be modified for human convenience. That, of course, contradicts the central premise of the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022.
DEFRA cites the potential for gene editing to address concerns over food security. I held a debate recently on the subject and talked about the need to prioritise sustainable domestic food production and build long-term resilience into our farming system. There is a danger, as the Soil Association points out, that gene editing is used as a sticking plaster for industrial farming systems, targeting symptoms and not root causes. The Secretary of State mentioned porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome, which, as I understand it, is caused largely by poor living conditions. Why not try to address that rather than using the new technology as, as the Soil Association points out, a sticking plaster? The UK Government appear to be rushing to adopt untested technologies to distract from the real issues in our food system, such as poor soils, lack of crop diversity, intensive industrial farming and falling domestic production.
I will come to a close shortly, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I think you are looking at me sternly. It might be easier to take the Government at their word if they were not abandoning other plans that would have a positive impact on food security and inequality. The food strategy for England, which was published on Monday, has been remarkably watered down by rejecting many of the recommendations in the food system review and dropping the commitment to introduce a food Bill.
In Scotland, the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Bill, which is making progress, will produce plans that will be scrutinised according to various metrics, including social and economic wellbeing, health and the environment. A draft plan has been published on ending the need for food banks. The Scottish Government’s new vision for agriculture outlines how we aim to support farming and food production in Scotland to become a global leader in sustainable and regenerative agriculture.
If the UK Government are serious in their intention that the Bill will affect the market in England only, they must amend it to ensure that products covered by it are not included in the mutual recognition and non-discrimination provisions of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, and that the devolved Parliaments can reject those products outright if they are not content. The Scottish Government think that the principle of devolution should be respected by the UK Government. The Scottish Parliament should be asked for its consent before actions are taken hastily that could undermine our trade with Europe and compromise the safety of our food.
This is our food system. We must surely ensure that every possible safeguard is in place before we adopt  this Bill.

Julian Sturdy: As someone who has a farming business, I draw hon. Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I warmly welcome the Bill. I commend the Government for pressing ahead on a matter that is vital for national and global food security, protecting the environment, supporting the developing world and advancing UK science and prosperity at a time of economic uncertainty.
In the limited time that I have, I want to firmly refute the misconceptions that have been spread, in and outside the Chamber, about how gene editing is allegedly bad for animals and animal welfare. It is right that we proceed with careful additional safeguards for animal precision breeding, as the Bill proposes, but precision breeding can provide animal welfare benefits so huge that to my mind it is actually unethical not to allow it. Stopping diseases such as PRRS in pigs, bird flu, swine flu and mastitis is obviously a huge advance for animal welfare, not a threat to it. Put simply, regulation should follow the science. It should be based on the evidence, not on superstition or political agendas.
I reiterate that gene editing is wholly distinct from genetic modification, so it is totally wrong for it to be aggressively restricted in the same way. Genetic modification is the introduction of new material from one species into another; gene editing is the adjustment of DNA within one species. It simply speeds up, and makes more precise, genetic changes that occur naturally through conventional breeding methods. Food from gene-edited plants is therefore indistinguishable from food produced through conventional methods. Gene editing speeds up natural changes that can otherwise take up to 15 years. Do hon. Members seriously want to wait 15 years to protect animals from horrific diseases, to aid farmers in sub-Saharan Africa or to start producing more affordable healthy food in the UK? I think not. That is why we have to support the Bill.
The Whips will not be surprised to hear that I have some concerns about part 3, which risks undermining the legislation aimed at ensuring that innovation and investment, through regulation, reflects the scientific evidence; that is what we must base it on. There is already disquiet that the Food Standards Agency has been gold-plating the innovation-killing precautionary approach inherited from the EU. On top of that, on current drafting, the ministerial powers on food and feed safety risk assessments and traceability in part 3 risk adding additional safety assessments and other hurdles, thereby piling investment-destroying costs on to the breeding process, which could ultimately deter scientists and businesses from innovating. We must be careful about that.
In essence, however, this is a great piece of legislation and must be supported. I look forward to following its passage through this place.

Caroline Lucas: I believe that this is a flawed Bill—it is not strategic, it is not clear and it does not do what it says on the tin. Ministers breezily assert that it will deliver access to wonderful new markets, while failing to acknowledge that it actually risks hindering access to our closest significant market,  the EU, as we create a divergent regime for regulating genome-edited products. As we have heard, consequences for trade with Northern Ireland are being ignored. With the Scottish and Welsh Governments currently taking a different approach from that of England, the Bill is a recipe for consumer confusion and significant operational difficulties for retailers across the UK.
These big questions are critical, but in the short time that I have, I shall spell out how the Bill falls down on some core principles that render it flawed and not fit for purpose. Those principles are scientific coherence and clarity, properly defined criteria—or the lack of them—and transparency.
On coherence and clarity, in its title and text the Bill uses the phrase “precision breeding”, yet that is neither a specific technology nor a scientific discipline. It is a marketing term: a vague colloquialism for a number of recently developed genetic engineering technologies, which do not form a coherent group of methods, and do not justify being called “precise”—not when the scientific literature contains reports of genetic technologies such as genome editing creating unexpected and unwanted mutations, genetic errors, altered proteins, and extensive deletions and complex rearrangements of DNA in plants. [Interruption.] I will not give way yet.
The Government give a nod to that uncertainty with their caveat that genetic editing of animals will not take place until animal protection can be safeguarded. Engineering the DNA of animals raises major animal welfare and ethical concerns. A wealth of problems are set out by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics report on gene-edited farm animals. As I understand it, there is nothing to prevent biotech-created disease resistance being used as a sticking-plaster for the intensive factory farming practices that are the underlying cause of disease emergence in the first place. That is why, given the current drafting, animals should be removed from the Bill’s scope, full stop.

Katherine Fletcher: Nature makes mistakes; that is how evolution comes about. So the mistakes that are reported in the literature are actually further evidence that such technologies effectively replicate a natural process. Does the hon. Lady agree?

Caroline Lucas: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. As has been said, she clearly has expertise, but I am looking at the scientific evidence that has been put before me, and it is being suggested that the mistakes that can be made in this area, especially when it comes to nature, appear very different from those that are seen in nature.
I move on to the principle of properly defined criteria. Using a term that lacks any proper definition looks like an attempt to obscure the full scope of the proposed deregulation. The terms “precision breeding” and gene editing help promote a particular narrative—that the process is just a simple “cut” or “tweak”. The Government are also at pains to stress that any changes might have occurred “naturally” and do not involve the insertion of transgenes—so-called “foreign” DNA.
I have read that this is to some extent smoke and mirrors. The Bill seeks to deregulate all manner of genetic manipulations, and genome editing can sometimes  involve the insertion of foreign DNA. As I understand it, the argument is that in such cases the inserted DNA gets removed before the product goes to market. That may well be the intention; but by using poorly defined criteria in the title and wording of the Bill, the Government are asking us to pass bad legislation.

Robert Goodwill: Is it the case that, if the EU were to allow this technology to go ahead, the hon. Lady would, like the SNP, embrace it?

Caroline Lucas: I am not making a blanket statement in that way. I am saying that if a whole load more safeguards were built into the Bill and if it were not based on a set of definitions that are being criticised by the scientific community, I would have rather more confidence in it than I do right now.
As we have heard, several learned organisations have challenged the Government’s creation of this hypothetical class of GMOs that could have “occurred naturally” or could have been created using traditional breeding. The Institute of Food Science & Technology has called the approach “overly simplistic”, and the Nuffield Council on Bioethics was
“not convinced that this is either the most proper or most popular framing”.
The Roslin Institute found it “exceptionally challenging”, while the Royal Society of Biology said:
“No clarity can be achieved using this principle—we would not recommend using it as the basis for regulation.”
In response to last year’s public consultation, there was a clear view that this is a fundamentally flawed and unscientific basis for regulation.
Turning to transparency, there are no provisions in the Bill for the labelling of genetically engineered or so-called precision-bred food, despite this being what a majority of the public want, as the Government consultation made clear. In that consultation, 85% wanted genetic technologies used in farming to continue to be regulated in the same way as other GMOs. There are significant concerns over the commercial drivers of genome editing in farmed animals, for example. This makes labelling really important, not least if Ministers want citizen and market trust, and buy-in to any new regulatory regime. The public register idea is welcome, but it needs to be accessible as well as comprehensive, and it should include all genetic engineering events and organisms used in UK agriculture. Reduced data collection is worrying. Data that is not collected cannot be analysed. Ministers are simply assuming that risks are non-existent or vanishingly slight, but there is nothing scientific about such wishful thinking.
In conclusion, we need a national conversation. Regulation and innovation need not be at odds, but products of agricultural genetic engineering, including newer techniques, should be subject to a robust and transparent regulatory and governance framework. This must include a strong traceability and labelling scheme that protects the interests of organic farms and allows consumers to make a choice in the supermarket. This legislation lets down consumers, farmers, the environment and animals. Rushing ahead with a badly conceived and designed Bill because the Government are simply desperate to claim some kind of success on post-Brexit deregulation is unacceptable, and I urge them to bring back something better.

Anthony Browne: I want to speak in support of the Bill. Anyone who comes to the rural idyll of South Cambridgeshire and sees the fields of golden wheat, yellow rapeseed and barley swaying in the wind, or indeed goes and sees the cattle herds in the south-west of England or the sheep in the north, might think that that was agricultural produce as nature gave it to man—and woman, no doubt— but that is not the case. Since agriculture was invented 10,000 years ago, people have consistently bred the plants and animals they have been given, and those plants and animals have changed incredibly over the last 10,000 years. For example, there is very little in common visually between a chicken and the south Asian jungle fowl that it came from. All of that breeding was done by the natural mutation that happens randomly in nature, and most of those mutations are mistakes and do not get used.
We now have the technology to speed that up. We have radiation breeding, which various colleagues have talked about, where we speed up the mutation and do not just rely on the random happenstance of nature. We now have precision breeding, and gene editing in particular. We have the technology to do that, and my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher) went into detail about how it works. This technology has huge advantages, but we cannot use it because it is banned by the EU and we inherited that legislation. This Bill is clearly designed to allow us to do it.
This is a huge issue in my constituency. It is not just that I have a lot of farmers; I also have a lot of plant breeders who are chomping at the bit to use this technology, and a lot of genetic companies. South Cambridgeshire is the genetics capital of Europe, and there is huge interest in this there. There are lots of advantages to it that many of my colleagues have mentioned. There is a win for food security as it will enable us to have greater crop yields. There is also a win for the environment because we can use fewer pesticides and fertilisers and there will be less demand on water resources, which is a big thing in South Cambridgeshire.
The technology also benefits humans, as colleagues have mentioned. For example, the Japanese tomatoes that are on sale at the moment will reduce blood pressure, there are US soya beans with less saturated fat, and there are less carcinogenic amino acids in wheat. All of those are benefits. It can bring benefits to animals, too, by ensuring chickens are immune to avian flu and pigs are immune to swine flu, but we need to make sure that this is not used in any way to reduce animal welfare standards—I strongly support the Secretary of State’s assurance that we will not compromise on animal welfare standards as a result of this Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) mentioned the industry’s concern that part 3 of the Bill means the Food Standards Agency will require a full risk assessment for food and feed, as if it is a genetically modified organism with genetics from two different species, rather than the traditional breeding approval process. This adds time, cost and uncertainty. The developers and breeders will not know if their crop will be improved at the end, so the measure will damage investment in the sector.
Such decisions should be based on science and evidence. The Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, Health Canada, and the European Food Safety Authority agree that there is no difference between the risk profiles of traditionally bred strains and precision-bred strains, and therefore there should be no difference in the approval process. They are, in essence, exactly the same. It is impossible to tell the difference between them.
The irony is that, by gold-plating in this way, we risk ending up with a more restrictive regime than the EU’s regime. This is meant to be a Brexit opportunity, but it could end up with the EU taking the lead. A few amendments may be needed but, with that caveat, I strongly commend the Bill to the House.

Kerry McCarthy: We have heard today of the potential benefits and of how gene editing could have a role to play in reducing our reliance on fertilisers and pesticides and in creating food that is resistant to drought or food that is more nutritious. We have heard about vitamin D in tomatoes, and there has been a long-running conversation about vitamin A being added to golden rice, although it has yet to live up to its billing.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) that the Bill is very thin on the regulatory framework. Perhaps the Government ought to have put those measures in place before steaming ahead with developing these products. His points on labelling were well made, too. The concerns about cross-contamination and support for organic food producers and consumers are valid.
The Soil Association has raised concerns about the commercialisation of crops and tells us that just four companies control more than 60% of the global seed supply. I do not have time to go into detail on those concerns, but they need to be flagged up in Committee. I went to talk to farmers in El Salvador after the Central America free trade agreement, and they want to support organic farms and natural seeds but were told they cannot because, under the free trade agreement, alternatives from Monsanto and others have to be allowed into the market. I would be very concerned if such a situation were allowed to develop here at the expense of people who want to go down the organic route.
The most problematic part of the Bill concerns the gene editing of animals. I accept there are some positives, such as helping to reduce our reliance on antibiotics, but there are other ways to do that. Other countries have been much better than us in restricting the routine overuse of antibiotics.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) said the Bill is trying to tackle the symptoms, not the causes. If not for the ever-growing intensification and industrialisation of farming, where animals are crammed together in unsanitary conditions, we would not need to rely on the routine use of antibiotics, as too many farmers do.
We have had an interesting debate on whether we could use technology to suppress the birth of male chicks. At the moment, 29 million male chicks are killed by the poultry industry each year, and 7 billion are killed globally. They are fed into maceration machines—mincing machines—because they do not lay eggs but, again,  other countries such as Germany, France and Sweden are already doing things to stop chick shredding without resorting to gene editing.
I am concerned by what the Secretary of State said in response to the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) about yields. He did not refute her concern about the Government saying the Bill will enable the development of
“precision-bred plants and animals which will bolster food production”
and “drive economic growth.”
Existing livestock farming methods have already led to the creation of animals that are radically different from their original natural forms. We see turkeys and chickens that are bred to be so heavy that they cannot support their own weight on their legs; the milk yields of cows have more than doubled in the past 40 years, to about 22 litres per day in the UK—that is not natural; and we know that cows, as well as suffering from mastitis, now become infertile extremely quickly from intensive milking. Their life cycle has been reduced from 20 years in the wild to about three or four when raised in intensive farming conditions. Again, the causes, rather than the symptoms, ought to be tackled by the Government as well.

James Wild: It is a pleasure to support this legislation, which is part of the Brexit dividend that gives us the freedom to regulate to support innovation. Unlike the stifling, overly complex EU regime, we have the exciting opportunity to take a proportionate, science-based approach to precision breeding. This is a welcome part of the Government’s focus on science and technology to drive economic growth. My county of Norfolk, and specifically the Norwich Research Park, is well placed to help realise these benefits, as it is home to not only world leading research institutes, but gene editing companies. Of course, it also plays a crucial role in our food production.
It is important to be clear what this Bill is about and what it is not about. Precision breeding is about enabling DNA to be edited much more efficiently and precisely than current breeding techniques to produce beneficial traits. Crucially, these traits can occur through traditional breeding and natural processes. Indeed under clause 1 that is a requirement in order to be classified as a “precision bred organism.” As my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) said, this does not involve adding DNA from a different organism, so this is not about genetically modified organisms. Of course, people will want reassurance about the safety of these techniques. The expert independent Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment has stated that precision bred organisms
“posed no greater risk than their traditionally bred or naturally arising counterparts.”
By adopting a more agile regulatory approach, the time taken to comply with existing GMO regulation for getting precision bred crops to market will be cut from an estimated 10 years to just one. That is a huge win to accelerate innovation, and secure productivity and efficiency gains in crop production.
The real world benefits are significant, as we see if we just think about the disease-resistant crops that reduce the need for pesticides and fertilisers. In my constituency, the yields of sugar beet have been wiped out considerably in recent years, as the Secretary of State said. The UK Research and Innovation-funded study has identified sources of genetic resistance that would reduce the need for neonicotinoids—for pesticides—thus helping to protect the environment, increase food production and reduce costs to farmers. There is also the potential for crops to withstand changing climates, and there are also health and nutritional benefits. Colleagues have referred to the pioneering work that the John Innes Centre is doing to produce precision bred, high vitamin D tomatoes. In addition, tomato leaves are usually only waste material, but by editing the genes, those leaves could be used to make vitamin D supplements, thus reducing waste.
The disproportionate approach by the EU led to advanced breeding being moved outside the EU, and now we can take a lead in catalysing food science and innovation, and attracting inward investment. We can do so on the basis that precision bred organisms that have occurred naturally, or through conventional methods, should not face unnecessary layers of regulation. That was the original rationale of the Bill. As others have said, there are real concerns among crop and plant breeders that the power to introduce sweeping new regulations under part 3 of the Bill could see the introduction of additional new hurdles that are not scientifically justified—new requirements that do not apply to conventionally bred crop varieties. That would be a major disincentive to bringing these new techniques in. It is essential that we do not remove the EU bureaucratic rules only to allow the FSA to reimpose requirements that are not proportionate or necessary. Otherwise, what is the point in diverging from the EU approach?
In conclusion, I look for an assurance from the Minister that this opportunity to boost our agritech sector will be based firmly on a proportionate approach, and that during the passage of the Bill commitments will be made and included in the legislation to ensure a light-touch, low-cost and pro-innovation approach.

Helen Morgan: In broad terms, I support the idea of encouraging a science-based approach to technologies such as genetic editing for precision breeding. In general terms, I accept that such methods will be helpful in the fight against climate change and excessive antibiotic use, among other things, and that they have the potential to reduce the need for pesticides in farming. I welcome that the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment and the European Food Safety Authority have advised that no more risk is attached to precision-bred foods than to those from traditional breeding methods.
I would like clarification on some other implications of the Bill. First and foremost, I am concerned that it is a slight distraction from the current crisis facing British farmers. Contrary to the Prime Minister’s assertions this morning, Liberal Democrats are broadly supportive of the concept of the environmental land management scheme and the sustainable farming incentive, and we welcome a replacement for the basic farm payment. However, the farmers we meet, such as those I met on Friday, tell us that the reduction in the farm payment  this year, when the replacement scheme is not yet in place, is causing genuine hardship. They would like to get on board with the new schemes, but the up-front costs make it unlikely that they will bother. A deregulated environment for precision breeding will not help them, because they might not be in business to benefit from it. We need to back farmers with a smooth transition between subsidy schemes to make sure we still have farmers who can benefit from the changes the Government propose.
The Bill is a bit light on detail on the new regulatory requirements for these crops and animals. Will the Minister clarify how the Government will identify any unforeseen environmental consequences once these products are released into the environment? It would be useful to understand how unintended downsides will be dealt with if they happen.
As many Members have suggested, there are concerns about animal welfare. While editing the genes of a pig, for example, to make it resistant to the worst types of disease is welcome, that must not be a shortcut to allowing pigs to be reared in less hygienic and more crowded conditions. Not only must their welfare continue to be protected; it must be continuously improved.
Given the amount of rhetoric over the past couple of years from Government Front Benchers about a bonfire of regulations, how can consumers be reassured that the Bill is not a back-door route to reducing animal welfare and environmental standards, in which our farmers have led the world? It certainly makes no provision for food labelling, that would allow consumers to decide whether or not they prefer a precision-bred product. Those concerns are a direct consequence of the fact that it is not at all clear how the precautionary principle outlined in the Environment Act 2021 and the Government’s environmental principles policy statement of 12 May will be applied in this area. At points, the two seem to be directly at odds with each other. I ask for clarity from DEFRA on that point.
We are proud of the progress our farmers have made and the high standards they have achieved. We do not want all that effort to be wasted now through a back-door watering down of standards. I am worried about the impact that any reduction in confidence in British food and agricultural products would have on the export of our excellent food products to the EU, which we know takes a more cautious approach to gene-editing technologies.
I would like a complete overhaul of food labelling so that consumers know exactly what they are buying. Then, if there is a Union Jack on the package, they can be confident that the animal has been reared on a British farm by a British farmer, or that the carrot has been pulled from a British field, and that they have not just been butchered or peeled here. If the animal or carrot has been bred through a gene-editing process, that should be clearly marked on the package, so that the consumer can make the choice. It is vital to empower consumers with as much information as possible, so that they can make informed choices and have trust in the quality of the food they buy.
In conclusion, I support the Bill, but with qualifications. We need to build trust and confidence in our food chain. Transparency in labelling, appropriate regulation to provide readiness for unforeseen circumstances, and maintaining and improving animal welfare standards would help deliver that. I urge the Government to  consider those points in Committee. As I said, the priority at the moment must be the viability of our family farms in the short term. They need short-term support—

Eleanor Laing: Order. I call David Duguid.

David Duguid: It has been said, but it bears repetition, that gene editing is different from genetic modification, because it does not result in the introduction of DNA from other species. Gene editing creates new varieties similar to those that could be produced more slowly by traditional natural breeding processes. Without this legislation, that process would continue to be regulated in the same way as genetically modified organisms.
The Bill will introduce simpler regulatory measures to enable these products to be authorised and brought to market more easily, but not without the appropriate controls. The devil, as they say, is in the detail, and however the legislation is progressed and scrutinised in Parliament, and whatever final form it takes, we can be assured that it will be more fit for purpose for our country than the EU regulations it replaces.
I am, of course, aware that the legislation will apply only in England, but I welcome the UK Government’s invitation to the devolved Administrations, particularly the Scottish Government, to take part in this process on a UK-wide basis. Although disappointed that the Scottish Government have so far declined to accept that invitation, favouring rather to remain aligned with the EU, I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to confirm that that door remains open for them to take part. I am hopeful that, ultimately, they may welcome the opportunity to participate in that programme.

Andrew Bridgen: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is clear that the Scottish National party would like to move at the more pedestrian pace of the European Union, some two years behind us on the introduction of this technology?

David Duguid: I may be tempted to agree with that, but, in my experience as a Scotland Office Minister, I think that it is much more productive to work with Scottish Government Ministers behind the scenes; outside the sometimes febrile mode of this Chamber, we can work together on these things. Again, I encourage the Scottish Government and my SNP colleagues in this House to come to the table and work on that basis.
From talking to farmers and food producers in my own constituency, as well as to the National Farmers Union of Scotland, I know that gene editing technology in food production is not only desirable, but one of many crucial tools that can be made available to all British farmers. I quoted the president of NFU Scotland, Martin Kennedy, earlier. He did go on to say that the NFU of Scotland
“is disappointed that the Scottish Government has chosen not to partake in the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill in favour of a European ruling on gene editing.”
In my regular ongoing discussions with NFU Scotland over the years, one of its major concerns—not its only concern, to be fair—is maintaining the integrity of the  UK internal market, which is something that I very much hope will not be impacted by any divergence in legislation across Great Britain.
Gene editing, as has been said, can improve crop yields by allowing scientists to modify crops to be more resilient to the changing climate and produce more nutrient-rich produce. I therefore believe that such a Bill will advance the UK’s crop resilience and agricultural economy for years to come.
I am glad to see that the UK, including the Roslin Institute and the James Hutton Institute in Scotland, are leading gene editing technology across Europe, promoting agricultural development in an environmentally sustainable way, and prompting, we hope, an increase in investment in United Kingdom businesses. I therefore believe that this Bill will help to energise the UK’s agriculture and food production industry.
I welcome this Government’s commitment to establish a proportionate regulatory system for precision-bred animals, which will allow the UK to retain its high animal welfare standards while increasing livestock resistance to health issues, such as respiratory syndrome in pigs, improving their welfare and quality of life. I do not think that it is an either/or proposition. We can be improving living conditions for animals and using this technology.
In conclusion, this Bill is a valuable piece of legislation that should benefit our food production industry right across the UK, and I look forward to seeing its progress through Parliament. I again express my hope that, at this early stage of the Bill, the Scottish Government and SNP colleagues in this place—with their customary challenge and scrutiny, of course—decide to take part in this process for the good of farmers and food producers in Scotland as well as across the rest of the United Kingdom.

Eleanor Laing: I thank the hon. Gentleman.

Ruth Jones: It is a pleasure to wind up for the Opposition this interesting debate on gene editing. I must say that the level of input has been high quality, with important points made across the House.
I trust that the Minister was listening carefully to the words of advice and guidance given to her by hon. Members across the House, but in particular by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), who has led on this topic for the Opposition for several years.
Labour is pro-science and pro-innovation. We want to find ways to maintain and improve the efficiency, security and safety of our food system while addressing the environmental and health damage that the modern food system has caused. We also recognise, as has been said, that laws designed 30 years ago for genetically modified products need to be updated and that most countries are recognising that gene editing needs to be treated differently.
We are more than willing to work with the Government to achieve real gains in improving environmental sustainability and reducing food insecurity. We want the  Government to prioritise innovations that would provide public benefit and prosperity. We want our scientists to succeed and use their skills for good here in the UK, and we know that crop development and innovation has brought us all huge gains. But that requires a strong regulatory framework to get it right, and this Bill does not provide that. It needs substantial amendment. We need a strong regulatory framework that will give scientists and businesses the confidence to invest here in the UK, while giving confidence and knowledge to consumers so they can make informed decisions—a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) made eloquently.
We welcome the research and innovation currently under way, but to get this legislation right, the Government must have a strong plan to balance the risks and manage trade-offs. Of course we cannot afford to let risks paralyse our course of action, but we do need a system that manages those risks and provides security and transparency for businesses and consumers alike.
The Bill provides for the deregulation of genetic editing of vertebrate animals and includes a provision to establish a welfare advisory body. That advisory body must report to the Secretary of State to inform them whether the originator of a genetically edited organism under consideration has identified any adverse impacts on animal welfare and made an appropriate risk assessment for their proposals.
However, the Bill as it stands does not specify which adverse impacts on animals would be grounds for a GEO application’s being denied, nor does it lay out what evidence the advisory body will consider with regards to animal welfare. Several non-governmental organisations and civil society groups have criticised that element of the Bill.
The Government’s Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022 made provisions for an Animal Sentience Committee to scrutinise and consider the impact of legislation on animal welfare, but the committee has not yet been fully established. Can the Minister explain in her wind up why she is pressing ahead with this legislation before the Animal Sentience Committee has had time to consider it?
Research has overwhelmingly found that consumers support genetically edited foods having a different regulatory system from that for genetically modified foods, but they want clear labelling and effective regulation of gene-edited products so they can choose the products that suit their lifestyle. Surely that is not an unreasonable ask.
Here we have a much-needed Bill, given the need for agri-innovation and scientific development, and of course the Opposition welcome the concept. But why oh why is this legislation being rushed in? We need strong and robust regulation of this important and developing field. We need clear scientific evidence and strong protections to safeguard animal welfare. We need clear and transparent labelling to protect and inform consumers. Yet again we see truth in the saying “Legislate in haste, repent at leisure”, and I urge the Government to consider our concerns and those of stakeholders and consumers and be open to constructive criticism in Committee. If they are prepared to do that, we will not push for a vote on Second Reading.

Jo Churchill: I thank all hon. Members for their contributions, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher), for York Outer (Julian Sturdy), for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne), for North West Norfolk (James Wild) and for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid). I also thank the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) and the Opposition for the constructive way they have leaned into this debate today. I would immediately say, “Yes, we need to work together on this.” I think the majority of those in this House see the huge opportunity we have here.
“The emergence of genome editing is a significant moment, as it represents a possible step change in introducing a new generation of potentially transformative biotechnologies into the food and farming system.”
Those are not my words; they are from the Nuffield report.

Ruth Edwards: I welcome this Bill, which will hugely enhance our future food security. May I draw the Minister’s attention to pioneering new genetic editing techniques being developed at the University of Nottingham’s Sutton Bonington campus, and invite her to join me on a visit there to see that groundbreaking research in action?

Jo Churchill: I thank my hon. Friend very much. I believe my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble is an alumna of that august institution, as indeed am I, so I would be delighted to visit it. That intervention raises a key point that, because of the limited time, I will address in a general sense.
We do have some of the finest institutions, and many of them are lodged in Scotland. The James Hutton Institute and the Roslin Institute are beyond good in this space. They need to be supported. They do not need to wait for others to follow. Our door is open. We want to get this right. We want to work with the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock). Professor Colin Campbell of the James Hutton Institute has said that it is right. Professor Helen Sang from the Roslin Institute has given evidence to say that this is what we need. She is working on ensuring that we can beat avian flu, which attacks both animals kept inside barns and those kept outside.
We have the opportunity to improve animal welfare here, and I would like to address that point full on. Animal welfare is currently of a high standard in this country, and it is not true to say that this Bill will affect it. Our animals are protected by comprehensive and robust animal health welfare legislation, including the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2007, passed by Labour. These provisions help to reinforce the fact that the welfare of animals is a key priority, and it is simply not true to say that the Bill will lead to a diminution in those standards.
The Bill allows us to take the opportunities that have been presented to us through leaving the European Union. It is important to celebrate our country’s strengths at Rothamsted, James Hutton, John Innes and Roslin, all of which I have visited, and I hope to go to Aberystwyth   soon. It is important that we move on this as a country. By encouraging greater research and development in the use of precision-breeding technologies, we are supporting that drive. Innovation is key to enhancing the sustainability and resilience of our agricultural systems by harnessing the benefits of precision breeding to eradicate disease, as we have discussed.
My hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) and my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer addressed the issue of section 3. The Bill provides the Food Standards Agency with an opportunity to build from scratch a tailor-made framework that is proportionate for the UK. This will allow swifter progress for businesses wishing to market precision-bred organisms while still ensuring the safety of our food.
I could not agree more that safety, transparency, proportionality, traceability and customer confidence is what we are building here. The EU is currently reviewing its systems and has acknowledged that its current system is not fit for purpose. I would indeed be happy to share that documentation, which is publicly available, with the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith. It is important that we move ahead in this area, and our scientists, farmers and researchers all want us to do it. It is simply not true to say that this will allow multinationals and conglomerates to drive forward in this space. Actually, in the countries that have already driven PBOs into their system, we see democratisation, with a greater proportion of precision breeding patents being held by smaller and local businesses.
In response to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), who is no longer in her place, I agree that food security is a top priority. We have taken account of the Nuffield report and public concerns, and we are constantly in dialogue with our stakeholders. On Monday, we met animal welfare stakeholders to talk about the declaration and how they can feed into that. I agree that consumers need clear labelling, but the FSA will authorise products for sale only if they present no risk to health and do not mislead customers.
As this technology brings no safety risk, labelling will not be required to indicate the methods used in breeding. It is unnecessary because, as has been repeatedly pointed out, it is the same as traditional breeding. The countries that are already in this space—Canada, Japan, the United States, Brazil and Argentina—do not do that. A public register will be available on gov.uk to ensure further traceability.
There is a great deal more that I could go into on the particular things that were brought up, but I want to finish by saying that this is a huge area of advantage. We need to go forward as a country making sure that we take our scientists with us, enhance our research and breeding practices, and enable consumer confidence. Ultimately the key aim of the Bill is to ensure that precision-bred plants, animals, food and feed products are regulated proportionately to their risk so that we can fully embrace the benefits and advantages of scientific progress that has been made over the past 30 years. The Bill is good news, and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill: PROGRAMME

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 12 July 2022.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Consideration and Third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Amanda Solloway.)
Question agreed to.

Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill: Money

Queen’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:
(a) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State or the Food Standards Agency; and
(b) sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act.—(Amanda Solloway.)
Question agreed to.

Business without Debate

Delegated Legislation

Eleanor Laing: With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 6 and 7 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Road Traffic

That the draft Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) (Amendment) Order 2022, which was laid before this House on 11 May, be approved.

Hovercraft

That the draft Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) and Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Pollution) (Law of the Sea Convention) Amendment Order 2022, which was laid before this House on 12 May, be approved.—(Amanda Solloway.)
Question agreed to.

Independent Expert Panel

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 150(D)),
That this House:—
(1) takes note of the report of the Independent Expert Panel, The Conduct of Mr Patrick Grady MP, HC 368 and the recommendation for sanction of a suspension of two sitting days; and
(2) accordingly suspends Patrick Grady from the service of the House for a period of two sitting days, namely Monday 20 June and Tuesday 21 June.—(Mark Spencer.)
Question agreed to.

Government Policy on Syria

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Amanda Solloway.)

Alison McGovern: Madam Deputy Speaker, I begin my contribution this evening by, through you, thanking Mr Speaker for allowing me the time for this debate. It is more than poignant to rise in this House this evening, the night before the sixth anniversary of the murder of Jo Cox MP. Having requested a debate on Syria, which I did for a little while, it must have been fated that a slot would be available this week, given Jo’s incredible contribution to raising the alarm in this House and beyond about the terrible events occurring in Syria. She warned that if we did not stand for our principles in the face of those who would trash the rights of civilians in wartime, it would change our world, and not for the better, and she was right.
To compound the distress, the last time I led a debate on Syria in Westminster Hall, it was chaired expertly by Sir David Amess. Words simply cannot express how much we all miss them both and how indebted we are to their families for the great contribution and sacrifice Sir David and Jo both made. We think of their families tonight and wish them strength and love.
The argument I wish to make to the Minister this evening is that by turning away from conflicts such as that in Syria, we allow the world to be a more dangerous place. It should be obvious to everyone in this House that the situation that Syrian civilians have faced over the past decade—with human rights utterly obliterated at the hands of the Syrian regime, aided by Russia—is now echoed in the brutality that the Ukrainians have seen at the hands of the Russians.
The Minister’s fellow Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office Minister, the right hon. Member for Braintree (James Cleverly), said:
“Russia’s actions in Ukraine will be familiar to millions of Syrians who have suffered at the hands of the Assad regime, with Moscow’s backing. In both countries, Russia has been responsible for violations of international humanitarian and international human rights law.”
A person could be forgiven for wondering whether those words mean anything any more. When Bashar al-Assad’s regime, shielded by Russia, is responsible for chemical weapons use, arbitrary detention, torture and indiscriminate attacks on civilians, what do those words really mean? When Ukrainians see cities destroyed and siege tactics used yet again to starve people into submission, what do those words mean?
Our country has been central to the crafting of international humanitarian and human rights laws. The rights of non-combatants in the face of aggression are meant to mean something, as are the right to be treated in a hospital without bombs falling on the very doctors trying to help and the rights of refugees. Demonstrating that our words—whether articulated through the UN declaration of human rights, or the promises rightly made in the sustainable development goals by a Conservative Government and supported in every corner of this House—are not empty, but full of meaning for starving Syrians or starving people anywhere shows  that we care for others in this world, but also that we are always prepared to stand up for our beliefs in the face of aggression.

Jim Shannon: I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate; I spoke to her earlier. I understand that 9.3 million Syrians have become food insecure since 2020 and more than 80% of Syrians are living below the poverty line. Does she agree that we have a duty of care to do more to help those victims of war and terror? Our Government have met their obligations in the past, and hopefully they will do so even more in future.

Alison McGovern: The hon. Gentleman pre-empts what I am about to say and makes the point well. It would be good if the Minister could update the House on the diplomatic approach that we will take. If we in this House turn away from our principles, we lose sight not just of the Syrian people, but of ourselves. We honour our history, our culture and our interests by standing up for our values and their implementation. As I mentioned, the then Minister for the Middle East and North Africa, the right hon. Member for Braintree, said:
“The best thing for the UK to do is to ensure that the violence stops”.—[Official Report, 24 February 2020; Vol. 672, c. 28.]
As I said, it would helpful if the Minister could use this opportunity to update the House on the current strategy.

David Jones: I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. She will probably be aware that there has been a resurgence of Daesh activity in northern and eastern Syria. In relation to the point that she has just made, does that not also underline the need for the United Kingdom and its allies to pay close attention to what is happening today in Syria?

Alison McGovern: The right hon. Gentleman is exactly right. Where we take away our focus and shift our eyes, we leave a vacuum. Whether it is Daesh or any other form of terrorism around the world, if we are not involved in the world—not that we can do everything, but if we are not doing all we can to prevent the rise of terrorism—in the end, the House will have to pay attention to it. It is far better to have a plan and a strategy for dealing with it.
As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned, we know that many millions of people—in fact, most of the Syrian population; I think it is even worse than he said—are facing acute food insecurity. The number is 51% higher than in 2019. Record numbers of people need humanitarian assistance, and food prices have risen by more than 800%. That is mainly attributed to ongoing fuel shortages, increasing global food prices, inflation, and, of course, the Ukraine crisis. Against that backdrop, the World Food Programme has been forced to reduce food rations in all areas of Syria due to funding constraints. We face the perfect storm. If the Minister can, will she touch on the steps that the UK Government are taking, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, to ensure the renewal of resolution 2585 before it expires shortly on 10 July 2022 and ensure that the crucial crossing point at Bab al-Hawa remains open for the delivery of humanitarian assistance?
As well as there being a huge number of internally displaced people, many of whom are suffering in the most dreadful humanitarian conditions, the Syrian refugee population is now the largest in the world at 6.8 million. I appreciate that some of this is the Home Office’s responsibility, but will the Minister update the House on international discussions about support for that population and on the UK’s view of the future for Syrian refugees in the world?
It is ludicrous to expect the burden of supporting that number of people to continually fall on just a few countries. In response to a public outcry, the Conservative Government previously created a specific scheme to help to support Syrian refugees, but that is over now and in the past. We need to learn the lessons of the Homes for Ukraine scheme and our response in that case, so I would be grateful if the Minister could indicate the direction that we might be taking.
Speaking personally, I am inspired by the Syrians I meet in the United Kingdom. I think of the Syrians who work in the NHS in Merseyside as doctors. My hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Kim Leadbeater) also mentioned to me Razan Alsous, a Syrian refugee she knows who has created a great business with Yorkshire squeaky cheese, and a fellow Syrian restaurateur, Khaled Deakin, who is creating a mobile restaurant in Exeter. Refugees bring their contribution, and they make our country strong, not weak.
I want to finish by asking the Minister about Syrian civil society here in the UK, because the route to peace and democracy in Syria will be very long. While at times it will seem that the British Government can do very little to bring about change in Syria, we do now have so many British Syrians and Syrian civilians here in the UK who will be an indispensable asset in building the first steps on the long path towards a different future for Syria. Could the Minister say what work the Foreign Office is currently undertaking to engage with Syrians in the UK and British Syrians? There are many issues where the perspective of our fellow community members in the UK who have a deep connection to Syria may well be of huge benefit and insight. I am sure the Minister will herself have learned a great deal from speaking with them and understanding their priorities, not least in working towards justice and putting down a path for prosecution for the horrific crimes committed against civilians in Syria.
Finally, I want to say something about this House, because we are often reactive when it comes to such crises. When an emergency happens in the case of Syria or of Ukraine, we all want our say, and that is only right in a democracy, but these crises and conflicts have a sustained impact on the world around us, be it in Syria or any other conflict that has seen such abysmal treatment of our fellow human beings. We in this House must have the persistence and seriousness of purpose to give effect to our values and to defend our interests, and the moral discipline to see things through to the end. News cycles can move on; we must not.
Jo described Syria as “our generation’s test”, but when you fail a test, you learn your lesson, and we must do that not just for the Syrians, who deserve better from us all, but for every victim of every conflict wherever they may be, so that we may see them not as a victim of some foreign war, but very much as the business of this House.

Amanda Milling: Can I say how grateful I am to the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) for securing this very timely debate? I pay tribute to her for her work as chair of the all-party parliamentary friends of Syria group, and for her passion for Syria, as evidenced in her speech.
I also want to pay tribute to the legacy of Jo Cox and her commitment to the people of Syria, noting, as the hon. Member mentioned, that it is the anniversary of her horrific murder tomorrow and the fact that Sir David Amess chaired the last debate on this subject. As she said, they are both sorely missed by this House.
Bashar al-Assad and his allies, including Russia, have inflicted terrible suffering on Syrians for over 11 years now. Children born in Syria in the last decade have been subjected to terrible violence, hunger and deprivation. The UK Government continue to call for an end to this suffering through full implementation of United Nations Security Council resolution 2254, a nationwide ceasefire and progress towards an inclusive, representative political process.
Much of what we have seen play out in Syria, such as the crushing of dissent, attacks on civilian targets and a brutal conflict that has displaced millions, is now being replayed in Ukraine. Peace is a necessity for Syria, its people and us all.
Syria’s conflict has killed more than half a million people, displaced 60% of the population, and collapsed the Syrian economy. Under Assad’s regime people have faced arbitrary detention, brutal torture and indiscriminate attacks. There is clear evidence that Assad has used chemical weapons against his own people on at least eight occasions, and has the capability to conduct further attacks. Russia continues to shield Assad from accountability for his crimes, through disinformation and false narratives. Along with Iran, Russia has provided significant military support to the Syrian regime. The conflict has also created space for Daesh and other extreme groups to operate in, which continues to pose one of the most significant global terrorist threats, including to UK citizens.
The UK has responded to the situation in Syria by delivering our largest ever commitment to a single humanitarian crisis to date. We have committed a total of £3.8 billion since 2012, including up to £150 million pledged this year. Even so, aid is struggling to keep pace with the growing need in the region as the conflict continues. Today more than 14 million people are in need of assistance. Access issues and politicisation are complicating delivery, putting those in need at further risk. As the hon. Lady said, in July the UN Security Council will hold a crucial vote to renew the UN’s mandate to deliver aid cross-border into Syria. Russian cruelty in the past three years has blocked that in the Security Council, and reduced UN access to a single border crossing. I visited Turkey last week to see first hand the importance of that issue, and to raise awareness. We are calling on all Security Council members to renew resolution 2585 and to provide cross-border aid at next month’s vote. We thank our allies and partners for their continued support.
The UK also supports efforts to maintain the current ceasefire in north-west Syria, including Turkey’s efforts to protect civilians. We will continue to support Syria’s neighbours, so that they can meet the needs of Syrians seeking refuge. As they are so often, women and girls are the worst affected by the conflict. They also face horrific gender-based violence, including sexual violence. Support for women and girls is at the heart of UK foreign and development policy, through three innovation pilots that seek to prevent violence by targeting the widespread inequality that denies women ownership of land and access to economic resources and opportunities. We continue to push for a more robust global response to gender-based violence. The conflict is also denying Syria’s children their basic human right to education, impacting a whole generation of young people. Since 2018, the UK-funded Syria education programme has reached more than half a million children, supporting 85% of children in lower primary school to be enrolled in schools in the north-west.
Just as we are consistent with aid, so will we continue to hold Assad’s regime and its backers to account, including by sanctioning those close to him, and through our support for international law. There can be no impunity for violations of international, humanitarian and human rights law. Since 2012 the Government have contributed more than £40 million to gather evidence and help victims of human rights abuses and violations, including through the UN. We welcome the release of any detainees, but the regime has denied independent verification of its recent amnesty on prisoners, and there are still 130,000 who remain unaccounted for.
Our position on the regime’s abhorrent use of chemical weapons during this conflict is well known. The UK has full confidence in the Organisation for the Prohibition  of Chemical Weapons and its investigations, which have attributed multiple attacks to the Assad regime. We will continue to push Assad to comply with the Chemical Weapons Convention.
On the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) about Daesh, threats from terrorist and extremist groups rooted in Syria remain. The UK is a leading member of the global coalition against Daesh. We remain committed to ensuring it cannot resurge in the region, working with the coalition and our regional allies.
I also want to pick up on the hon. Lady’s comment about civil society. We recognise the contribution of Syrians in the UK. The Government support and work closely with Syrian civilian society, especially in terms of upholding human rights.
In conclusion, the UK is committed to supporting the people of Syria. They have not been forgotten. We are clear that the UN-led political process, led by special envoy Pederson, is the only pathway to bring the peace that Syrians need and deserve. The Assad regime craves legitimacy, but continues to bring suffering and oppression to its people, and to stall the political process as it pursues self-preservation over genuine political reform. Until the regime participates in that process in good faith, we will not engage with Assad and will discourage others from doing so. Meanwhile, the UK will continue to deliver lifesaving and life-sustaining humanitarian assistance to protect women and girls, and to hold the regime and its backers to account.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.